Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBERS SWORN

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law:

Ernest Albert John Davies, esquire, Enfield, East.

Ian Mikardo, esquire, Reading.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the Bournemouth Corporation Act, 1930, relating to Bournemouth Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, and read the First time; read a Second time, pursuant to Standing Order [28th April, 1955]; to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the Doncaster Corporation Act, 1926, relating to Doncaster Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, and read the First time; read a Second time, pursuant to Standing Order [28th April, 1955]; to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour why a man, details of whose case are in his possession, after medical examination, was allocated by his Department to the Royal Air Force, in view of the physical limitations of the man concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): A National Service medical board had found this man fit for service in the limited capacity appropriate to Grade II (a) (feet). He had expressed a preference for the R.A.F. and, having been accepted by that Service in full knowledge of his physical assessment, was, in accordance with normal practice, posted to the R.A.F.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to call upon a man, details of whose case are in his possession, to complete his National Service on suitable duties in the Army, in accordance with the practice followed in numerous other cases where the physical requirements of the Royal Air Force have not been reached.

Mr. Watkinson: After this man's entry, the R.A.F. obtained their own consultant's opinion and, on it, decided that he was below the minimum physical standard of acceptance for National Service. In such circumstances it is not the practice to call up a man for further service.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister appreciate that in the R.A.F. there are Grade III and Grade IV men—in fact there are some men who have to wear canvas shoes? Is he trying to justify this? Does he not feel that it will do a lot of harm to the principle of National Service unless there is some fair play between man and man?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not trying to justify it at all. What I am saying is that this man has been in front of our National Service medical board many times, as I think the hon. Member knows. I gave


the assessment which these boards put upon him. The R.A.F., which is certainly not under my control, put a different assessment. There may be, as sometimes has happened before in these cases, some conflict of medical evidence.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that this man undertook a rather strenuous cricket tour in Australia last winter and that he scored 100 in a match only last Saturday, and that if he is fit to undertake a tour of that nature he is surely fit to peel "spuds" in the R.A.F.?

Mr. Watkinson: That sounds a very attractive proposition on the surface, but the fact is that a Service has to look at a man and consider what liability he will be to it in the future.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say if certain physical limitations are imposed by the R.A.F. on entrants who are conscripts called up for National Service? If they differ from the physical limitations imposed by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, could hon. Members be informed about the difference?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman will have to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air and not to me.

R.A.F. Personnel (Discharges)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases since 1st January, 1952, his Department has called upon men discharged from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy because of physical limitations to complete their National Service in the Army.

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Member has in mind men discharged from National Service engagements, the answer is "None, Sir." Men discharged from Regular engagements are called up to complete their whole-time service under the National Service Acts, if found fit by a National Service medical board, but statistics in the form required by the hon. Member are not maintained.

Call-up Notices

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider making arrangements to give a longer notice of call-up to report for duty in the Armed Forces in the case of farm workers,

especially those in specialised branches such as dairy cattlemen, in view of the difficulty of finding replacements.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily.

Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that it is customary for men in this position to be given a short holiday of perhaps a week before call-up? Will he bear this in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: I certainly will, but of course they normally get not less than six to eight weeks' notice, and if there is a harvest they are deferred very much longer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that his satisfaction is not shared by the farm workers or the farmers, who realise that it is far more important that these men should be producing more food from British land than wasting their time in Cyprus, British Guiana and other places? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the considered opinion of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland? Is it not time that the Government realised that this step to abolish the call-up would be welcomed by agricultural people?

Mr. Watkinson: I have never heard that the farming industry wanted to do other than play its fair share in what is a national duty.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Factory Inspectors

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has taken note of the official statement made by his Chief Inspector of Factories, that the cure of industrial ill-health had to come from the engineer, the chemist and the physicist after the doctors had declared where the danger lay; and whether he will recruit a greater proportion of such technically trained men and women for the Factory Inspectorate than he has been able to get hitherto.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. This is one reason why the organisation of the Factory Inspectorate includes technical branches staffed by engineers, chemists and physicists as well as a medical


branch. As regards the point raised in the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to his Questions on 15th March.

Dr. Stross: But does the Parliamentary Secretary still accept that the reason he has not got as many of these trained people in the Inspectorate as he would like is that the salary scale is not adequate and does not attract them sufficiently?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the answer to that is contained in the replies to the two Questions of the hon. Member which follow.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors were appointed following the advertisement of vacancies in March, 1954, and November, 1954, respectively; how many of those appointed hold university degrees in engineering, chemistry and physics; and how many have had more than 12 months industrial experience before being appointed.

Mr. Watkinson: Eight and four, respectively, and there are two candidates from the later competition who have still to take up their appointments. Of those appointed from the earlier competition, one has a degree in chemistry and one in physics, and both these have had more than 12 months industrial experience; of those from the later competition, one has a degree in physics and has had more than 12 months' industrial experience.

Dr. Stross: Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember that in November last, when we had an Adjournment debate on this subject, he said that the aim was to get one for one—one arts graduate for one trained person? Does not his answer today show that, as yet, his Department has not succeeded? May I ask him if he will now accept what I said? Is it not a fact that the salary scale does not attract these men? Why does not the Parliamentary Secretary speak to the Treasury more forcefully?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not trying to dodge the issue. In any case it arises again in the next Question. My answer

shows that we are trying to attract technically trained graduates.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour when he received a claim in 1954 for an increase in the pay of Class 2 factory inspectors; and whether he has yet made an offer in satisfaction of this claim, and at what date.

Mr. Watkinson: A claim was received on 7th July. No offer has been made but, following other correspondence, a considered reply was sent to the Association concerned on 13th October. This was followed by a meeting with the Association on 8th November last. The matter is still under consideration, but is being pursued as quickly as possible.

Dr. Stross: Is not this a very serious matter? Nearly a year has passed. This is the entrance grade that we are talking about, the most important level of all for recruitment, and we find that a year has passed and nothing really has been done. Will not the Parliamentary Secretary give us some assurance that he and his right hon. Friend will set an example, as they really must do in these matters in spite of the machinery, and let us have this claim accepted?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope that I shall not be accused of advocating a new doctrine if I say that I think it unwise for me to comment on a pay claim in my own Department which is still under consideration.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister consider the fact that industrial developments are constantly increasing the importance of the work of the inspectors; that new duties are being added to them and the strain on the existing inspectors is very great, and that it is most desirable to increase their number?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I am not saying that I am not at one with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend about the importance of the factory department. At the moment the authorised complement is 309. I accept that perhaps it would be better were it bigger, but there are 296 in post, so we are not very much under strength. We will do our best to get the right people for this most important job.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING

Index Revision

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour when a more accurate and up-to-date index will be available to measure changes in the cost of living.

Mr. Watkinson: The method of calculating the Interim Index of Retail Prices was revised in 1952. On the recommendation of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee, a comprehensive inquiry into household expenditure was undertaken over a period of 12 months ending early in 1954 for the purpose of providing more up-to-date information for the index. The information collected in this inquiry is now being studied by the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee, and I hope that, with its help, it will be possible to carry out a further revision of the index towards the end of this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that old-age pensioners and people on small fixed incomes regard the present interim index with profound suspicion, because it understates the extent to which the cost of living has risen and therefore presents a rather false and inaccurate picture?

Mr. Watkinson: I am also aware that the economic report of the T.U.C. states that the T.U.C. thought this index was, on the whole, a very fair measure of the cost of living—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How long ago?

Mr. Watkinson: It is the current report—and that the inquiry we are undertaking will probably not bring about any major modification in the form.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost-of-living bogey was a complete flop at the General Election, and does he not think that the hon. and gallant Member should think of something new in this direction?

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that what really happened at the General Election was that the Tory Press refused to tell the truth about the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not unaware of what happened at the General Election. But as my Ministry is charged with presenting the facts fairly on an important

matter like this, we had better stick to facts and not discuss politics.

Mr. Stokes: But is the Minister aware that between 1951 and 1955 the cost of essential foodstuffs rose by 50 per cent.? He cannot laugh off that one, and if he denies it that would be a lie.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Public Halls, East Kilbride

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when halls for use by youth organisations and other social activities will be built in the new neighbourhood units of East Kilbride.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The development corporation has had preliminary discussions with the local authorities and voluntary organisations whose function it is to provide such accommodation, but no building programme has yet been formulated. In the meantime, facilities for the activities referred to are available in existing buildings in the new town.

Mr. Maitland: May we take it that my right hon. Friend will pursue this matter? Although alternative facilities do exist in local schools and buildings, they are not adequate for a series of technical and geographical reasons, and this is a very serious social problem for the new towns.

Mr. Stuart: I agree, and I will pursue the matter.

Chiropody Services

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities are now providing a chiropody service for old people.

Mr. J. Stuart: Eleven local health authorities are employing chiropodists to provide a service for old people, and nine others are making contributions to voluntary bodies who do so. In addition, many more voluntary bodies are undertaking the work with contributions from local authorities.

Miss Herbison: Will the Minister do his best to persuade all local authorities


who have not yet such a service to institute one? Will he also inquire how many of those local authorities are applying a means test to these old people for such a service?

Mr. Stuart: I have at present no knowledge or information about the last point, but I will look into it. I am anxious to see this service expanded.

Housing Site, Glenmavis

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when Lanarkshire County Council may expect his decision on the site for housing at Glenmavis.

Mr. J. Stuart: The county council has submitted a compulsory purchase order for this site and I have fixed 1st July as the date by which the statutory procedure in connection with the lodging of objections must be completed. As, thereafter, a public local inquiry may be necessary, I cannot yet say when I shall be able to reach a decision.

Miss Herbison: Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to hurry this matter? Is he aware that this is the second compulsory purchase order of the Lanarkshire County Council, and that this second order was instituted on 23rd March? Is not 1st July much too far away when dealing with such an important matter?

Mr. Stuart: As the hon. Lady knows, certain procedure has to be followed and formalities gone through, which take time. I regret that there should have been delay, and I will do my best to expedite the final decision.

Poliomyelitis and Spastic Diseases

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the advances in medical science for the treatment of the disease of poliomyelitis since his statement in Parliament on 2nd November last; how far these advances have been applied to Scottish patients; and if he will now make a further detailed statement showing the present incidence of the disease in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. and learned Member on 23rd November last. He will

be aware, however, of the recent statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about the arrangements under consideration in Great Britain for the use of the new poliomyelitis vaccine for the prevention of this disease. There have been 186 provisional notifications of the disease in Scotland in the period of 32 weeks which began on 24th October, 1954, compared with 207 notifications in the corresponding period a year earlier.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Secretary of State indicate the ages of the victims of this disease and the proportion of cures among the old and the young, respectively?

Mr. Stuart: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give notice of that Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date with the survey, scientific tests and research begun in Scotland, with financial assistance from the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust, into the causes, treatment and cure of poliomyelitis, spastic disease and cerebral palsy and into the most appropriate methods of rehabilitation.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Trust has just accepted the first application for financial assistance for research into poliomyelitis and other virus diseases. This consists of a grant of £3,000 to meet the cost of equipment which will be required shortly for this purpose in the new virus laboratory at Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow. As regards spastic disease or cerebral palsy, the survey that the Trust is assisting began last autumn and is planned to extend over a period of two years.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the very valuable work being done by this Trust, would the Secretary of State consider issuing a comprehensive statement on its work?

Mr. Stuart: I think that it would be better to wait until this survey is completed.

Mass Radiography

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will take steps to increase the number of mobile X-ray units for the detection of tuberculosis in Scotland;
(2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the campaign to detect and eradicate tuberculosis in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: Since 1953, mass miniature radiography units have been employed on community surveys as well as on the survey of industrial groups and other special sections of the population. The six community surveys conducted in 1954 were responsible for 67,086 of the 360,852 persons examined by mass miniature radiography. The 1955 programme of mass miniature radiography is on the same lines. The best way of using mass miniature radiography in future years is now being studied, and I am prepared to consider providing additional mobile units if it is established that effective use could be made of them.

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: Can my right hon. Friend say if the main difficulty in the way of increasing the number of these surveys is shortage of equipment or shortage of trained staff?

Mr. Stuart: As I have said, when we have a little more experience I will be prepared to consider trying to procure additional units, but this, of course, will necessitate the training of additional staff.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that both in Leith and Greenock and in other places his Department's experiment had enormous success? There seems, therefore, to be enough information to justify developing this system of what might be called high-pressure salesmanship to get people to undergo this test. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his Department in the experiments which have been conducted so far.

Mr. Stuart: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly bear in mind what he has said.

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the shortage of mobile X-ray units for the detection of tuberculosis is making it difficult for regular follow-up examinations to take place in the Pilton Ward of Edinburgh and other districts, where a comprehensive initial examination has been carried out; and what action he proposes to take to meet this shortage.

Mr. J. Stuart: Mass radiography units are not used for the follow-up of persons placed under observation as the result of community surveys such as that in Pilton, and so far as I know the regular chest clinics are finding no difficulty in carrying out this work. I am not satisfied that the repetition of a community survey after a relatively short interval would be an efficient way of using expensive equipment, or of employing the trained staff who would have to be diverted from other important work.

Mr. Hoy: Is it not a fact that this particular area, which, with the central Leith ward, carried out so successful a campaign, is finding some difficulty in doing the follow-up work which it was asked to undertake by the Department and is complaining that equipment is not being provided? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to think this matter over again?

Mr. Stuart: We are, of course, watching it very carefully, but I believe it to be more efficacious to devote the available equipment to breaking new ground and to trust to the regular chest clinics to do the follow-up work.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to arrange for further miniature X-ray campaigns against tuberculosis in Edinburgh along the lines followed by the Pilton Central Committee.

Mr. J. Stuart: A similar campaign was carried through in central Leith in March of this year. As regards the future, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison).

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentle. man aware that there is a feeling of frustration about this? Can he give an assurance that there will be sufficient equipment available to make this possible?

Mr. Stuart: We are certainly going to continue the process. There is no suggestion of stopping it.

Local Government Structure and Functions

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a committee to inquire into the structure


and functions of local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. I am not aware of any general desire for such an inquiry on the part of local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that a great many responsible people in local government in Scotland have expressed the need for such an inquiry? There has not been such an inquiry for nigh on 30 years, and as two of the four local authority associations in Scotland have asked for such an inquiry, will he reconsider his decision?

Mr. Stuart: One does not have an inquiry unless one is satisfied that useful results can be obtained. The principal associations of local authorities have not made representations on this matter.

Mr. Hubbard: How can the right hon. Gentleman tell what results he is likely to get before he has the inquiry—whether there is a need for it or not?

Mr. Stuart: If the principal associations have not demanded an inquiry, I very much doubt whether there is sufficient ground for instituting one.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State not consider the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland one of the principal associations, and would he not also include as one of the principal associations the District Councils' Association?

Mr. Stuart: I am quite aware of the views of the District Councils' Asociation —so the answer is "yes"

Crofters Commission

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to announce the names of the members of the Crofters Commission.

Mr. J. Stuart: I hope to be able to announce the membership of the Commission in the course of a few weeks.

Mr. Grimond: Have the headquarters of the Commission been decided?

Mr. Stuart: I think that I can say now that accommodation will be found in Inverness.

Medical Emergencies (Helicopters)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if helicopters are now available for urgent medical cases from the Scottish islands.

Mr. J. Stuart: Discussions are still proceeding on the possibility of an arrangement for the use of naval helicopters in extreme medical emergencies, and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the nearest helicopter might be based?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid I cannot do so without notice. I shall have to consult the Admiralty on the subject.

Sir D. McCallum: Can my right hon. Friend say what would be the procedure in an urgent case? Does the doctor ring up St. Andrew's House, or what is the procedure to obtain a helicopter?

Mr. Stuart: I should have thought that it would have been simpler and quicker to ring up the base where the helicopter is stationed.

Hearing Aids (Repairs, Edinburgh)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the delay in dealing with the repairs of hearing aids in Edinburgh; and whether he will take steps to speed up this service.

Mr. J. Stuart: I regret that minor repairs have sometimes taken up to a week or ten days in recent months, but staff difficulties are now being overcome and I hope that normal service will soon be restored. Where major repairs are needed, a replacement aid is supplied immediately, and this is also done in other cases where the user's employment so requires.

Sewage Disposal, Wartle

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct his medical officers to investigate the sewage disposal position at Wartle, Aberdeenshire, having regard to the fact that water supplies are becoming contaminated.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have arranged for one of my medical officers to visit the village and report. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible thereafter.

London-Perth Trains (Motor Car Freightage)

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult with the British Transport Commission and the Tourist and Holidays Board with a view to the introduction this summer of car-carrying facilities on express trains between London and Scotland in order to encourage the tourist industry.

Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that the British Transport Commission is proposing to introduce this summer a special twice-weekly service between King's Cross and Perth for the carriage of cars and their passengers.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Under existing conditions, might it not be better to have a few train-carrying cars?

Mr. John MacLeod: What will the charges be for carrying cars in these circumstances?

Mr. Stuart: I was not asked that question and have not the information.

Dental Hygiene

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to further the education of parents, and particularly of expectant mothers, in dental hygiene and the maintenance of dental health.

Mr. J. Stuart: Education in dental hygiene and the promotion of dental health is provided to mothers and expectant mothers as a permanent part of the maternity and child welfare services of the local health authorities. I sent to the authorities in October, 1952, a report of the Standing Dental Advisory Committee which emphasised the importance of this work, and I am shortly making available to them supplies of a special leaflet dealing with the care of children's teeth, for distribution to mothers of young children.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since a special drive in this respect is being made in England, could not my right hon. Friend do something to emphasise the steps that are already taken and to stress the importance of this subject?

Mr. Stuart: I do not wish to criticise England, but I would point out that we started on this in October, 1952, and that had it not been for the railway strike—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why blame the railway strike?"I—because people find difficulty in travelling—we would have had an important Press conference in Edinburgh on the subject. We shall have it as soon as possible.

Repairs and Rents Act (Applications)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the working of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act in the City of Dundee.

Mr. J. Stuart: At 31st December last, the town council had granted eight applications for certificates of disrepair, refused two and had one under consideration. The next return, showing the number of applications dealt with up to 30th June, should be available towards the end of July. It will not, however, be possible to give information about repair increases and the local authority proposals for dealing with unfit houses under the Act until the autumn.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under this Act there are about 300 tenants of the Northern Housing Association in Dundee who have been completely removed from the protection of the Rent Acts and left completely at the mercy of the landlords? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Stuart: The Association has informed the tenants, but has no intention of breaking any leases. The tenants are asked merely to renew their leases, if they wish to under the new conditions.

Mr. Strachey: Is it not the intention of the landlord in this case to increase the rents? Is not the right hon. Gentleman now saying that they are enabled to do it by being outside the Rent Restrictions Acts? Was it his intention to secure this effect when he inserted this Clause in the Bill?

Mr. Stuart: I cannot debate again a Clause which was fully debated when the Bill went through the House of Commons. During the long discussions, it was stressed again and again that an increase in costs necessitated some alteration to maintain houses.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not the policy of the Socialist Party that local authorities should take over all these houses, and in that case would the houses not come automatically outside the Rent Restrictions Acts?

University Students (Grants)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that an adequate proportion of Scottish university students are at present receiving financial assistance in their studies; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Education (Scotland) Act empowers education authorities to give assistance to enable students to take advantage of university education without financial hardship to themselves or their parents, and I have no evidence that Scottish students who need this assistance are not getting it. Draft regulations proposing increases in the maintenance allowances and an adjustment at the lower end of the income scale on which parents' contributions are assessed were published last week.

Mr. Thomson: Has not the right hon. Gentleman studied the latest returns of the University Grants Committee, which show that the percentage of assisted students in England is more than 74 per cent. whereas in Scotland it is less than 57 per cent.? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that that is fair?

Mr. Stuart: That is perfectly correct, but it is also true that in Scotland more students live at home, and that university fees in England are higher.

Private Housing Associations

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to restore legal protection under the Rent Acts to the tenants of private housing associations.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have no reason to think that any fresh legislation on this subject is necessary.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern Housing Association is a purely private body with no public accountability either to the tenants or to the country as a whole in any way? In the circumstances,

are not private tenants being taken completely away from the protection of all the Rent Acts?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware of the position, but I am not suggesting that the Northern Housing Association is doing anything that it should not. We shall, of course, watch the position.

Mr. Strachey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say quite clearly that it was his intention, and that he now supports it, that this class of house should be taken right outside the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. Stuart: Yes. Sir, that is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point in regard to a Question which was put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland and has now been transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. It appears on the Order Paper as Question No. 53. It refers to Scottish roads, and in particular to Highland roads for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is wholly responsible. Since it is purely a factual Question, why has the Secretary of State for Scotland not been permitted by the Government to answer it, and why is it being transferred to the Ministry to which I have referred? I shall be glad if the Secretary of State is allowed to tell us.

Mr. Speaker: As I have frequently said, the transfer of Questions is nothing to do with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Works why, despite all the facilities granted for parking in Central London during the strike crisis period, no facilities are given for additional parking on the Horse Guards Parade.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): Additional parking has been allowed on Horse Guards Parade. The extra space has been reserved for official use.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Mobile Defence Corps

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement with regard to the progress made to date with the organisation of the Mobile Defence Corps.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Courses on rescue work for volunteers and potential Army instructors are already being conducted by former Home Office instructors at one Army centre. Rescue and fire training for National Service men who are to go to the Mobile Defence Corps will begin in October.
The controlling staff of the Mobile Defence Corps has been at work for some time. The organisation of the rescue and fire battalions has now been decided and the battalions will be built up to strength as trained men are turned out by the centres. Although National Service men who will eventually form the greater part of these battalions will not begin to join them until the end of this year, I am glad to say that the volunteers who have so far come forward from Anti-Aircraft Command are sufficient for 25 Army battalions.

Mr. Harvey: Is it not a fact that not enough publicity has been given to this new organisation and that many people who might otherwise join it are in the dark about it? Would my right hon. Friend give consideration to a greater degree of publicity for this very great new arm?

Mr. Head: We have already considered this question, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that his Question will add to the publicity. A great deal of publicity was given at the inception of this organisation, and I hope that more will be given as it grows.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: How many mobile defence columns are planned and how many have so far materialised?

Mr. Head: There are 48 planned, and as I have said in answer to the Question we have cadres for 25 Army battalions, for which my Department are completely responsible. We have a further 11 planned, but we think there is no point in forming a cadre for them until the intake of National Service men arrives, which will not be until next year.

Mr. de Freitas: is it not true that hardly anyone in the Army has ever heard of these things, in spite of debates and discussions in this House? Would not the right hon. Gentleman take up the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and circularise the units, explaining the form and the nature of this new organisation?

Mr. Head: All the units have been circularised. It is my impression that the vast majority of those who might volunteer are well aware of the formation of these new units.

Boys' Units (Organisation and Administration)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he has so far taken with regard to the recommendations contained in Command Paper No. 9433, the Report on the Organisation and Administration of Boys' Units in the Army.

Mr. Head: As recommended by the report, I have appointed a full-time Director of Boys' Training. I have also set up a small committee under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Military Training to help in putting the recommendations contained in the report into effect and to advise on the best and quickest methods of doing so. This committee has already met and considered most of the points which require action.

Barn Fire, Austria (Report)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now publish the findings of the court of inquiry into the barn fire in Austria in which British soldiers lost their lives and were seriously injured.

Mr. Head: As I have often said in the House, the proceedings of a court of inquiry are privileged and I cannot, therefore, publish the findings verbatim. I have, however, prepared a summary. As this is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very great distress has been caused to parents of soldiers who were


concerned, because of what they consider the utterly inadequate information given to them? Will the summary that he is going to publish state the causes of the fire and whether there is any truth in a rumour published in the Press that the fire was caused by the letting off of a thunder flash by an officer in order to wake up the soldiers inside the barn?

Mr. Head: I am aware of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have done our best to send individually to parents all the knowledge that came out of the court of inquiry. The long and the short of it is that, despite a very lengthy inquiry, it was impossible to establish the real cause of the fire. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that one thing that was ruled out was that the fire was caused by a thunder flash.

Mr. Albu: Is there any reference in the right hon. Gentleman's summary of the inquiry to the rumours that no officers were present other than one young National Service officer, and that the only people who were able to effect a rescue was one other young National Service man?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. When the hon. Gentleman reads the report he will find that that is not so.

Mr. Bellenger: In cases in which there is considerable public interest, would the right hon. Gentleman consider holding inquiries other than by an ordinary Army court of inquiry which, as he said, is privileged, which means that the facts are not really disclosed to the public?

Mr. Head: As I have said repeatedly before, the great advantage on a court of inquiry is that the proceedings are privileged, which means that those who give evidence have to give evidence; whereas otherwise evidence must be voluntary, with legal representation as in an open court. Over a long period courts of inquiry have done a good job and have been proved to be a satisfactory way of holding inquiry. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this case absolutely nothing has been held back. There was a most careful and detailed inquiry, in which everyone wished to find out the origin and cause of the fire.

Mr. Ian Harvey: In view of the very serious allegation made by the hon.

Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) about the conduct of an officer, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the report which is being published completely vindicates all the officers concerned?

Mr. Head: I may not have been listening, but I did not actually hear any particular allegation, except that there was only one young officer present. As I have said, if the hon. Member will read the report I think he will find this. In addition, the report itself completely vindicates the conduct and behaviour of certain officers who were concerned and about whom there has been correspondence with the parents concerned.

Following is the summary:
This fire in which four men tragically lost their lives occurred in a barn at Mattighofen in Austria at about 1 p.m. on 11th March. The 1st Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment had been taking part in a strenuous exercise with the United States forces which had ended about an hour before, and "C" Company of the Battalion were resting in the barn awaiting orders to move. The fire started in dry hay and speedily got out of control in spite of strenuous attempts by troops and civilians to put it out as soon as it was discovered. The fire brigade was summoned and arrived promptly but they were unable to save the men trapped in the barn. Two doctors were quickly available to attend the casualties, and an American helicopter was on the scene to take the injured to hospital by 1.45 p.m. I am satisfied that everything possible was done to prevent loss of life and that credit for fighting the fire and tending the casualties is due to all concerned.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of this fire. Some possibilities can almost certainly be dismissed. An examination afterwards indicated that faulty chimneys or an electrical fault in the wiring of the barn were unlikely to have been to blame. Similarly, spontaneous combustion of the hay in the barn seems most unlikely. On this occasion the hay had been cut and stacked for at least five months, whereas internal ignition seldom takes place more than three months after stacking. Nor is there any truth in rumours that the firing of a Very-light pistol or a cooking apparatus was the cause of the fire. This leaves two possibilities which cannot be entirely ruled out but neither can be said to have been a very likely, let alone a certain, cause. First is the possibility of a lighted cigarette end. Because of the presence of highly inflammable hay in the barn orders were given that there should be no smoking and the examination of witnesses produced no evidence that this rule was disobeyed. It seems certain that no-one was sleeping in the hay where the fire started, and the fact that the fire began at a point about 10 feet above ground level makes it very unlikely that a cigarette end discarded by a passer-by could have been the cause.


There remains the possibility that a battle simulator, that is a kind of fire-cracker, was to blame. Very shortly before the fire was discovered the company received orders to move, and two officers let off a cracker outside the barn to awaken the company. This cracker was ignited outside the barn about 19 feet from where the fire began. The position at which it was set off makes it unlikely that a spark could have travelled directly into the hay stacked inside the barn and subsequent experiments with similar crackers add to the doubt. Several of these crackers, which are of American manufacture and much less powerful than the British thunderflash, were set off in the middle of dry hay and failed to ignite it. Further, the fragmentation of the crackers never went beyond 12 feet and signs of scorching were negligible In addition, a photograph of a cracker exploded during darkness shows that the flash radiates no more than about 1½ feet, and it seems plain that a freak explosion would have been necessary if a fire-cracker were to have caused the fire.
To sum up, it is not possible to assess the probable cause of the fire; it is even possible that it was caused by some agency of which there was no evidence at all. These conclusions have been reached after exhaustive examination of all the available evidence and I am satisfied that a more satisfactory conclusion could not be reached.

Road Traffic Congestion (Military Movements)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, during periods of acute road traffic congestion, he will ensure that inessential military traffic, particularly horses, are kept off main roads.

Mr. Head: Instructions have been issued that only essential military movement should take place. If the right hon. Member will give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that last week, on a very busy access road to London outside Belsize Park Station, traffic was held up for several minutes by a number of horses belonging to his Department and that one of the horses panicked, mounted the pavement and nearly caused a serious accident among the pedestrians? Will he give instructions that this kind of traffic will be kept off the roads, not only during the strike but in periods of acute traffic congestion?

Mr. Head: I have very few horses now in my Department. I do not know for what purpose this particular movement was made, or whether it was an alternative form of transport, but I will certainly look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Monopolies

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation further to limit the power of monopolies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Donald Kaberry): The hon. Member will appreciate that there is nothing which can usefully be added to what was said in the debate on the Address, and he will not expect any pronouncement in advance of the publication of the report under Section 15 of the Monopolies Act of 1948 which deals with certain restrictive practices.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of a sensational speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Election, when he said that this Government were going to fight the monopolies? Can he tell us when this sham fight is to begin? Is he going to egg on the Chancellor or hold him back—or is the towel to be thrown into the ring before the fight starts?

Mr. Kaberry: I am sure that the hon. Member will recall the announcement that the report on certain restrictive practices will be published in the course of two or three weeks.

Mr. H. Morrison: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the repeated cases of tenders to local authorities and others for exactly the same amount for the same class of goods? In view of the Chancellor's speech, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has drawn attention, when are the Government going to deal with these things and rescue the local authorities from what is really a shameful position? When is Conservative freedom going to work?

Mr. Kaberry: The question of level tendering raises a point entirely different from that on the Order Paper, and the whole of the matter will shortly be the subject of a reference by my right hon. Friend.

Credit Facilities and Hire Purchase

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what results have been achieved to date by the restrictions


he imposed on credit trading facilities and hire purchase last February; and if he will give figures to illustrate the position.

Mr. Kaberry: The amount of credit extended to consumers has been restrained. I regret the figures are not available.

Mr. Harrison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us one example of how these restrictions have affected the general question of the balance of payments which they were designed to assist?

Mr. Kaberry: It will help the hon. Member if I tell him that discussions are now taking place about collecting statistics with regard to hire purchase. It is hoped to start collection and publication shortly.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first statistics he will need will be the figures of unemployment in the furniture industry, where these restrictions have already had a very serious effect indeed? Is he aware that we export very little furniture? Will he now tell the House what use is served by the hire-purchase restrictions as they apply to furniture?

Mr. Kaberry: The question about furniture raises a separate issue, but the statistics which it is hoped to collect and publish will show the position in its true light.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider taking steps to remove Purchase Tax from crash helmets, in view of the recent recommendation of the British Medical Association and the fact that some £4½ million a year is involved in treating injured people in hospitals who are unable to afford to buy this article.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take steps to remove the Purchase Tax on crash helmets for motor cyclists.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that each year upwards of 1,300 motor cyclists die and 18,000 are seriously injured on the roads in Great Britain in accidents in which the absence of crash

helmets is a contributory factor to the injuries sustained; and if he will now remove the Purchase Tax on these articles.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): This is a matter which I have considered very carefully in view of the representations made to me. But I am not yet convinced that motor cyclists are deterred from using these articles by the few shillings tax involved.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 1,300 deaths a year are caused by these helmets not being worn? Even if the persons themselves are not prepared to purchase the helmets, does he not think it the duty of the State to afford facilities for these helmets to be used?

Mr. Butler: I hope that people will wear these helmets, but I am not at present in a position to remove the tax.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Chancellor say the amount derived from the Purchase Tax on these crash helmets? Is it such a large sum that he cannot afford it?

Mr. Butler: This Government has, of course, restored prosperity to such an extent that it is not so much a matter of what we can afford but the very real difficulty here of picking out these special crash helmets for exemption—as, I believe, my predecessors in office also found.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Purchase Tax was originally imposed partly to discourage people from buying things? Is it not time that we removed this particular discouragement from this very valuable and life-saving article?

Mr. Butler: There are other forms of very important protective clothing which are still taxed, and I am afraid that I cannot go further in my answer today.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Chancellor say whether he has provided himself and his colleagues with the necessary crash helmets in order to anticipate the coming crash in the autumn?

Mr. Remnant: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the annual yield of Purchase Tax on motor cycle crash helmets.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): Traders are not required to make separate returns of the tax paid in respect of all the many classes of goods in which they deal, and therefore I regret it is not possible to say how much tax is collected in respect of specialised articles such as crash helmets.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the undoubted fact that the amount involved must be comparatively small, can my right hon. Friend reconcile the levying of tax on these motor cycle crash helmets with the fact that there is no tax on miners' helmets, both of which are designed for the same purpose, namely, the saving of life?

Mr. Brooke: I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the difficulty about crash helmets is not the amount of money involved, but the arguments that there are against complicating the Purchase Tax schedules by very large numbers of special exemptions.

Cost of Living

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to implement the resolution of the House of 19th March, 1954, to combat the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Since the House passed the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, the real value of retirement pensions and other national insurance benefits has been considerably increased. It is the constant concern of the Government to safeguard that value, but positive reductions in the cost of living must come from reductions of costs and from increases in productivity.

Dr. King: With all respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I ask whether he is aware that he has missed the point of the Question, which referred not to those whose pensions have increased but to those people living on fixed incomes, who do not benefit from any tax concession, wage increase or profit increase, but to whom the only way of giving aid is to reduce the cost of living? Since the Government's policy for the last three and a half years has failed, is it not time that they had a new policy to reduce the cost of living?

Mr. Butler: The country seems to find our policy eminently satisfactory.

Mr. J. T. Price: If the right hon. Gentleman makes these wide claims for his policy with regard to the cost of living, will he please explain to the House why he gave permission last week to the Court of Governors of the Bank of England to increase the fiduciary issue by £50 million, setting the printing presses to work at double speed?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be much better if such an important Question were put on the Paper. It would be unfortunate if the country were to derive any impression of abnormality from any seasonal increase in the fiduciary issue, for which similar examples can be shown in previous years.

Mr. Gaitskell: I understood the Chancellor to say that any hope of a reduction in prices must depend on a fall in costs. Can the Chancellor say whether he honestly thinks that in the present inflationary situation such a fall in costs is in the least likely?

Mr. Butler: I said that it should come from a reduction in costs and an increase in productivity. I would not accept that the situation is unduly inflationary. There are trends, however, which it is the policy of the Government to combat and which the Government's policy is so far having success in combating.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the index of world prices shows a fall of 20 per cent. compared with a period of exactly 12 months ago, will he say whether that is the fall in costs that he is looking for and when we can expect to see that fall in prices passed on to the prices of goods in the shops?

Mr. Butler: I think I should need notice of any particular question. I could not give an accurate answer if I did not have notice of that question.

Mr. C. Williams: Did my right hon. Friend read a very interesting article by one of the Scottish Lady Members in "The Star" two nights ago, in which she said that this line of argument had failed completely at the Election?

Local Government and Civil Service Pensioners

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will bring in a new Pensions (Increase) Act to supplement the work of former


similar Acts in assisting aged local government and Civil Service pensioners whose pensions have lagged behind the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This matter is being kept under review.

Dr. King: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember that these are small groups of people who cannot affect General Election results, and that these are people who for five years have been suffering a steady diminution in their standard of living? Has not the time now come for a further Pensions (Increase) Act?

Mr. Butler: We have already had one Pensions (Increase) Act. I read the report of the speech of the hon. Member in the debate on the Address, and I agree with him that this is a very serious problem. That is why I gave the answer that the matter is being kept under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Private Street Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if, in conjunction with the local authority associations, he will set up a committee of inquiry into the operation of the Private Street Works Act, 1892, with a view to discovering ways and means of bringing private streets under public ownership and control more speedily.
(2) if he will call for a report from all local authorities on the number and conditions of private streets in their areas and the problems which confront them in planning the repair and adoption of these streets, with a view to introducing legislation to assist them;
(3) what form of control he exercises over the amount spent and the work planned by local authorities under the Private Street Works Act, 1892.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): As I have already stated, I am prepared at any time to discuss any difficulties with the local authority associations if they so desire. Unless it is financed by loan, I exercise no control over expenditure on private street work.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL, NON-FERROUS METALS AND ENGINEERING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what changes are contemplated in the allocation of Ministerial responsibility in relation to the steel and engineering industries.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. After consultation with both sides of the industries concerned, Her Majesty's Government have decided to transfer to the Board of Trade the responsibilities hitherto exercised by the Ministry of Supply in relation to the iron and steel and non-ferrous metals industries and the engineering industry. The change will take place in about a month's time. An Order giving effect to the transfer in the case of the iron and steel industry will be laid before this House in due course. Thereafter the staff now dealing with these questions in the Ministry of Supply will be transferred to the Board of Trade. The Minister of Supply will continue to exercise his responsibility in respect of the aircraft and light metal industries, and further consideration will be given to the question of the electronics industry.
The purpose of this change is to relieve the Ministry of Supply of duties extraneous to its prime task of supplying the Armed Forces, and to associate the Board of Trade more closely with certain major industries which are of great importance to our export trade.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will it now be the case that the work of the Iron and Steel Board will pass under the jurisdiction of the President of the Board of Trade? if that is so, and if the Board have the practice of acquiescing in fixed prices for tenders to public authorities, will the position be that the President of the Board of Trade will be involved in a policy of fixed prices under a monopoly arrangement and, at the same time, administering the Monopolies Act which ought to prevent that being done?

The Prime Minister: The transfer will take place. Broadly speaking, the object of this arrangement is to enable the Board of Trade to deal with that aspect of these industries which grows steadily larger—that is to say, the export side of the


business. When the transfer was made in the other direction at the end of the war, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that at that time the supply of materials was the most important aspect of the whole business. We have carefully reviewed this in conjunction with industry, with representatives of employers and employed, and we are satisfied that on balance—it is a matter of balance—the advantage will lie in transferring this section of the Ministry of Supply's work to the Board of Trade because of the paramount importance today of the export position.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask one or two questions arising from the Prime Minister's statement? First, is he aware that, under the old system, the Ministry of Supply was extraordinarily successful in raising the exports of the engineering industry, often against the desires and views of the engineering industry, particularly motor cars and other products of the industry? Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Board of Trade already has far too much to do and that it is a mistake to transfer these additional responsibilities to the Board of Trade? Thirdly, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Supply is responsible for the engineering industry chiefly because it is so integrated with the whole of the armaments industry—aircraft, guns and everything else—is this not really a foolish step to take?

The Prime Minister: No. This step has only been taken after very careful consideration by the Government and in consultation with both sides of the industry. It is true that there is more than one view on the subject within the industry itself, and in making this change there was no kind of charge against the Ministry of Supply—nothing of the kind. The Ministry of Supply will, in fact, owing to new technological developments, have very much more work in that field than it had before, and we thought it right that these industries, which now form about 40 per cent. of our export trade, should be with the Board of Trade whose responsibility it is to deal with the export trade.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his later reply means that the engineering industry, as distinct from the iron and steel industry, welcomes this change?

The Prime Minister: There has been consultation with both sides of the industry, and a number of views have been expressed by the industry. Not everybody is in favour; not everybody is against. I do not want to give an unfair picture. I think it would be reasonable to say that on balance industry as a whole is not against this change. As I have explained, so far as the iron and steel industry is concerned there is an Order which will be laid before the House. This is an important matter to which we have given great consideration. I am not putting it forward in any partisan sense, but on balance we think that the national advantage lies with the change that we propose.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the step which the Government contemplate taking, which has been advocated by many people for many years, and which in my view is a very desirable step, and in view of the fact that the Ministry of Supply will now become primarily responsible for armaments production for the Army and Air Force, including research, has not the time arrived when the Ministry of Supply should also become responsible for research and production in the Admiralty, thus coordinating the whole of our research and armaments production in one Department?

The Prime Minister: That is leading me to an important but slightly different aspect of the question. The right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right when he says—as I tried to explain—that new technological developments will place an additional burden on the time of the Minister of Supply and those who work with him; and that was one of the elements in the situation which made us think this transfer desirable.

Mr. Strauss: Does not the Prime Minister realise that there is a conflict of interests here? Surely it is desirable that there should be one authority which decides what resources in the engineering industry should go to export, to development, to research and to work for the Armed Forces? If we have two Ministries dealing with one industry and these three integrated problems, we shall have difficulty and may get into a serious mess.

The Prime Minister: I do not think so. I should have thought that hon. Members would agree with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). This development is largely due to the increasing importance of the export trade in relation to supply for the Services. These industries are to a large extent the heart and centre of our export trade and it seemed right that they should be the concern of and should be looked after by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Ian Harvey: On a point of order. When the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. a R. Strauss) asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister he said, "Arising out of the statement by the Prime Minister." As a result of that he then asked three supplementary questions, followed by a couple more. Is not that a gross abuse of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I thought the matter was of sufficient interest to allow it to go a certain distance, but I cannot go far beyond half-past three.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has a statement to make about business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. In an interchange about business last Friday across the Floor of the House the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put forward a suggestion that the proposed discussion tomorrow on the debate on the Address should be extended so that colonial matters might also be raised in the debate.
In order, however, to give more time for debates on both these subjects, which together cover a very wide field, the Government propose, so that tomorrow can be devoted to foreign affairs, that a day should be set aside next week out of Government time for a discussion on colonial matters. The day we propose is Tuesday, 21st June.

Mr. Attlee: I am obliged to the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Lord Privy Seal be prepared to enter into discussions to ensure that the debate on colonial

affairs next week shall not cover the Report just issued on East Africa? Will he consider that Report as of sufficient importance to have another day later to discuss it? Otherwise, if we are to have a debate on colonial matters and at the same time on this very important Report, within a few days of receiving it, it is likely to be a confused debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point between now and tomorrow?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not know that I can promise a whole series of debates on colonial affairs, because there are other topics which other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may wish to raise. In view of what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, it might be worth considering postponing the debate altogether until a further week, but perhaps that could be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) would find considerable support from many hon. Members on this side of the House who are deeply concerned that this vitally important Report of the Royal Commission should have the treatment by the House which the work of that Commission over the last two years and the importance of the subject with which it dealt undoubtedly deserve?

Mr. Crookshank: That, of course, was one of the reasons which influenced the Government in suggesting that there should not be a telescoped debate tomorrow.

Mr. Lee: During the course of the debate on the Address, will an opportunity be given to the Prime Minister to enlarge upon the statement which he has just made in order to assure trade unions which have agreements with the Ministry of Supply that there will be no diminution in conditions of employment now that certain industries are to go over to the Board of Trade?

Mr. Crookshank: It is not for me to arrange the course of the debate in detail in that way. I thought I heard my right hon. Friend say that all this had been agreed with the trade unions and that it was done after consulting them.

Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister did not say that it had been agreed? Did he not say that there had been consultations, but that he could not say that there had been agreement?

The Prime Minister: That is quite right.

MEMBER SWORN

Peter Freeman, esquire, Newport.

BILLS PRESENTED

ROAD TRAFFIC

Bill to amend the law relating to road traffic (including driving licences, lighting and insurance), the provision of parking places, the regulation of public service vehicles and the licensing of goods vehicles; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; supported by Major Lloyd-George, The Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, and Mr. Molson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

COUNTY COURTS

Bill to extend the jurisdiction of county courts and, in connection therewith, to make further provision for the despatch of business in county courts by increasing the number of judges and otherwise, and provide for appeals from county courts on questions of fact, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by The Attorney General; supported by The Solicitor General, Mr. Henry Brooke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, and Mr. Deedes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

Orders of the Day — QUEEN'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[FOURTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[9th June]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament —[Mr. Simon.]

Question again proposed.

3.38 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: It will be recalled that on 4th May we had a debate on the social services. That was only a few weeks ago and it was on the Consolidated Fund Bill. On that occasion the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance replied for the Government and at that time, of course, as will be remembered, an Election was imminent. The Minister of Health will recall, perhaps, that he made what was described by some people as a pre-Election speech. I am sure that his memory of it is quite fresh. May I say that I am pleased to see him in his place so early this afternoon?
Perhaps I may refresh his memory, if he does not recall the details. He asked me whether I would read the Conservative manifesto "United for Peace and Progress," because he was of opinion that it would be appropriate reading for me. I did indeed read it and now, as I say, I wish to refresh his memory, because this is an excellent illustration of Tory professions and their subsequent performance.
May I recall what the Minister of Health said on 4th May, a very few weeks ago:
Perhaps I may repeat something which I said about the Labour Party's proposal for health in its new Election manifesto, I said that it seemed incredible that a party claiming to be interested in social services and to be a progressive party could seriously write paragraphs


about health and not include the words 'doctor, dentist, nurse, poliomyelitis, cancer, tuberculosis, infant mortality, hospital buildings.' I really cannot see, if those words are left out, what claim the party opposite can have to a progressive attitude towards the national health.
I intervened then and said:
This is a political manifesto and not a medical text book.
Then the Minister of Health said:
I recommend the right hon. Lady to read 'United for Peace and Progress,'"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Summerskill: Wait a minute—
which includes all the words which I have just mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May. 1955; Vol. 540, c. 1747.]
The Election has come and gone, and no doubt the Minister of Health amplified sections of the Conservative manifesto and received warm support for his proposals. No doubt his proposals and promises helped his party to win the General Election. The manifesto, surely, should reflect the Queen's Speech. I have carefully examined the Speech and find that there is not one word in it relating to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. While there are 12 paragraphs relating to foreign affairs, there is not one word about the poorest in the community, the aged, the widows, the disabled and the sick—not one word.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: They are not concerned now.

Dr. Summerskill: Of course, the excuse can be advanced that it is early yet and that there is plenty of time, but I would say that there are two categories in the community who cannot afford to wait for help—the sick and the aged. They have no time. After his boastful references to the Tory manifesto and his invitation to me to read it so that, perhaps, I might improve the Labour Party manifesto, the Minister might tell us today why there is no mention in the Queen's Speech of the aspects of the work of his Department which he emphasised in this House a few weeks ago and in the country.
In turn, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Tory manifesto? The Tories said that they would:
seek to open new beds where they are most needed, to recruit extra staff and to provide better facilities.

There is no indication of that in the Queen's Speech; therefore, they are committed to nothing. I should like the Minister to answer this point. I should like to hear particularly how many new beds will be provided this year for our overcrowded mental hospitals. I want to know what methods he proposes to recruit extra staff for the mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanitoria, which are desperately in need of increased staff.
The Election manifesto also said:
We shall encourage local health authorities to build up their home help services and to provide half-way houses for the old.
I understand that the present plans for new hospital buildings do not include that type of accommodation. If I am wrong, perhaps, at the end of the debate, the Minister will quote from any documents relating to that kind of building and show me that I am wrong. I take it that he is responsible for this part of the manifesto and that he says he is anxious to provide more home helps for the aged. Will he tell the House how he proposes to provide more domestic help through the local authorities?
I believe that the whole House realises that it is urgently necessary to make appropriate provision for the aged as soon as possible. I was astonished, when reading the Gracious Speech, to see that the problems of the aged population were entirely ignored. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Phillips Committee's Report, which said:
Perhaps the most striking change of all has been the increase in the number of old people living entirely on their own; and, it may be, in great loneliness … no fewer than 750,000 elderly women and 168,000 elderly men were living alone.
When we have discussed this matter on former occasions, I have always been of the opinion that the right policy is to enable old people to live in their own homes as long as possible. To ensure that, there must be made available assistance of all forms, from monetary assistance to home helps. Some of us, when canvassing recently, again realised the tragedy, the poignancy of lonely old age and the utter dependency of old people on the community for a change in their conditions—which, in the last analysis, means on the Government.
I wish to raise a matter which is not one for the Departments of either the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or the Minister of Health, but


which is for the Home Office. It concerns the Gowers Report. I raise it for this reason: in discussing the social services we are ranging rather wide and I regard the Gowers Report as one which concerns the prevention of disease. The modern treatment of disease by antibiotics and modern drugs is spectacular, but still the most rewarding approach to disease is the preventive approach. The Gowers Report was made by a committee of inquiry—a distinguished committee—into health, welfare and safety in non-industrial employment. It embodied recommendations which, if implemented, must reduce the incidence of accident and disease in this country.
The committee was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and hon. Members on this side of the House have frequently pressed the Government to implement the committee's findings. I think it was in February last year, when the Government were urged to take action, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service hotly denied that the Government were dilatory. He said:
we are considering very closely proposals for legislation to give effect to the Gowers Committee recommendations on safety, health and welfare, in such places as shops, offices, catering establishments, indoor entertainment, railways, agriculture and forestry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 759.]
It was hoped, after that half-promise, that there would be something in the Gracious Speech of last year, but the matter was not mentioned.
Three years ago a former Home Secretary who now presides over another place said:
The Government have considered the Report of the Gowers Committee … and are in sympathy with the general tenor of the Committee's recommendations on this subject." —[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 1st August, 1952 Vol. 504, c. 208.]
Finding the Government completely unresponsive, my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who was fortunate enough to secure a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, moved the Second Reading of the Non-Industrial Employment Bill on Friday, 1st April, the purpose of which was to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. Before my hon. Friend did that, he had the full approval of the T.U.C.

I understand that the T.U.C. advised him and helped him to draft the Bill. Therefore, it could not be regarded simply as the effort of a private Member, whose views might be rejected by the House. but as a corporate effort by an organisation which is highly respected by both sides of the House. That was on 1st April. An Election was pending, and the Government's attitude to that debate had a special significance.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend reminded the House of the very large numbers of workers toiling in dirty, ill-lit, badly-ventilated shops and offices who are afforded no protection whatsoever under the existing legislation. The medical officer of health in Glasgow had produced a report revealing the conditions under which many workers in shops and offices worked. I was very impressed with this, because one of the most serious aspects of that important medical officer's report was that he revealed that between one-third and one-half of these workers were under 18 years of age. Therefore, this House must have a special responsibility for these young workers. It means that at a most vulnerable age they are exposed to infection. Furthermore, their youth would make them reluctant to complain of bad working conditions, of dust, dirt, bad ventilation, and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), who represents a large union catering for these workers, reminded the House of some of the conditions. I ask the House to forgive me for repeating what my hon. Friend said, but I consider this matter to be of such importance and urgency that I am anxious, if possible, to evoke the sympathy of hon. Members opposite in this matter.
In quoting cases which illustrated the bad conditions of some of the workers, my hon. Friend said:
The first is in Frome, in the West Country, where there is a block of offices and shops employing staffs of both sexes. The shops include butchery, grocery, hardware, footwear, pharmacy, and confectionery businesses. No toilet facilities of any knd exist. When the staff need to use them they must leave the premises and go to the public conveniences in the town. That is not an isolated example. There are many thousands of such cases in all Darts of Britain.
The second example is in Plymouth, in a retail tailoring shop where three males and


one female are employed. One toilet is provided. It is in the shop and is partitioned off by a curtain about three feet from the cash desk in which the female employee works. Again those sort of conditions can be paralleled in thousands of cases up and down Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 733–4.]
Hon. Members may say that my hon. Friend is partisan. No doubt he was putting the case as strongly as he could for those whom he represents. But I do not think hon. Members opposite will say that the Chief Inspector of Factories is biased in this matter. Surely, he is not partisan. What did he say about this? The Chief inspector of Factories, who has an overall knowledge of conditions, uttered this warning in his Report:
The supply of juvenile labour which will be available during the next decade can be forecast accurately; it is well known that it will be inadequate and that no wastage can be made good. Young persons, in fact, constitute industry's most precious raw material, and employers would do well to ask themselves if they are watching over it with all the care that it needs.
A very strong case was put on that occasion, and that important debate was replied to by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who, we would all agree, has an excellent bedside manner. We rather fancied that he was put up by the Government to defend an indefensible position. That Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, said, only a few weeks ago after this House had debated that important Measure:
I repeat the assurance that we mean to introduce legislation in this field as soon as Parliamentary time can be found for it. A great deal of the work of preparing that legislation has been done, and it is simply and solely the shortage of Parliamentary time which prevents it being introduced.
That, of course, was immediately before the Election and nobody expected the Government to find Parliamentary time a very few weeks before the Election.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went on to say:
We intend to introduce legislation just as soon as we can, and I would advise hon. Members on this occasion to wait for that Government legislation which will do much better justice to the object which we all have in mind than would a Private Member's Bill, however Well devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 756–7.]
The House accepted that assurance of the Minister. My hon. Friend accepted it. The House had complete faith that when

time was available, legislation would be introduced.
The Bill was agreed to and was read a Second time, and now, in the Queen's Speech, we find that, while legislation is to be introduced in respect of those employed in agriculture and forestry, nothing is to be done for the shop and office workers, the railway workers—whose case was put in the debate—or for any other workers whose conditions were described in this House. Here, again, is an illustration of Tory professions before the Election and the failure of the Tories to fulfil their promises afterwards.
I should like to say a few words about housing, because I consider that housing is a most important social service, and some of my hon. Friends no doubt would wish to speak on it. If the Minister of Housing is not able to speak in the debate, perhaps he will put his reply in writing so that his right hon. Friend can give it. The Queen's Speech promises the continuance of
a high rate of house building
and encouragement of
action to secure the more rapid clearance of slums. …
In the Tory Election manifesto we are told:
Now that the construction of new homes is going ahead so well. we shall be able to devote a larger part of our resources to the elimination of slums and the modernisation of the older houses.
Why does the Queen's Speech make no mention of the modernisation proposals? There are about 14½ million households in the country. In the Housing Act, 1949, the Labour Government made provision for the older properties with a 50 per cent. grant from public money. The restrictions governing this grant were relaxed by the Housing Repairs and Rent Act, 1954, and I believe that up to date only about 16,000 houses have been improved with the aid of grants under the provisions of the 1949 Act.
I understand that there is only a trickle of applications for repairs under the 1949 Act, and I remind the Government that if prompt action is not taken now to deal with the problem of improving older homes, those homes will become a charge on the public funds and will become slum property in the next twenty or twenty-five years. This, surely, is a very urgent matter.
I turn now to the services for which the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is responsible. Here, again, there is no mention of these services in the Gracious Speech except in relation to a limited extension of the family allowances. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the speech he made on 5th May, when he told us that he anticipated introducing more legislation? I read it last night. I do not want to weary the House by reading from it. He went into detail about the kind of legislation he was anxious to introduce. Will he tell us, therefore, why none of this legislation has been mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
I am astonished, also, to find no reference to the aged, having regard to what has been said about them in previous debates. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that before Christmas he promised us a day to debate the Phillips Report. At the beginning of May he said that we had not had time, but that he would try to find time for that debate. Why has he pigeon-holed a Report which he himself said was of the utmost importance? I think that that is not only discourteous to the distinguished Phillips Committee, but shows a callous disregard for the needs of the aged. He knows who were the distinguished people who served on that Committee for many months—indeed, I think it was for nearly two years—and whose Chairman was regarded as one of our most brilliant civil servants. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange time for a debate on that Report.
In the Queen's Speech it is said that the Government promise to
… extend the period during which family allowances are payable for children who remain at school.
In their General Election manifesto the Conservatives promised to increase maintenance allowances for senior pupils who might otherwise leave school before finishing an advanced course. Does this mean that the family allowance is a substitute for the maintenance allowance? How would the right hon. Gentleman define "school" in this context? Does this extension of family allowances include children at all colleges, technical and otherwise?

Mr. James Griffiths: I wonder whether it will affect apprentices.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend mentions apprentices. We need more skilled technicians, and family allowances would be a great encouragement to apprentices, and would encourage young people to become skilled technicians rather than to undertake unskilled labour.
There is another anomaly about which the right hon. Gentleman could do something. He knows that there is such an individual as one who remains mentally retarded, is uneducable, quite unemployable, has a childish mind, and who, except that he has an adult body, remains dependent upon his parents. When the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of extending family allowances would he extend them to include people of that category? Those people are not, of course, insane; they are mentally defective; they are children, for the most part harmless. They could quite easily be included in the extension of family allowances.

Mr. Frederick Gough: Would the right hon. Lady elaborate that point a little? I am interested in it. How would she define that class of people?

Dr. Summerskill: Medical officers have registers of them, and they define them. I have said that that type of person is unable to benefit from any kind of education, and those people are unemployable, even in the simplest jobs. We see them, particularly in villages, standing in cottage doorways, perhaps helping mother in all kinds of little chores. I think that that category could be included in the extension of family allowances.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Why does the right hon. Lady say she sees them only in villages? There are more in towns. I represent a rural constituency, and I know that there are more in the towns. The right hon. Lady ought to withdraw that remark.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must not be too sensitive. He does not represent a village.

Mr. Osborne: I represent many of them.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must be longing to speak in this Parliament. When we drive through villages we see those people standing at cottage doorways, but it is not so easy to distinguish them in busy places like London.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do for those who are known as the 10s. widows. All of us have letters from those women, despairing little notes describing their miserably inadequate resources.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: What did the Socialists do for them?

Dr. Summerskill: This question was brought up last year and the year before, and the right hon. Gentleman came to that Box and said to the House that he had the matter under consideration. He is advised by an excellent committee, and I know that he had asked that committee to consider this subject. This group of people is a dwindling group. When new social legislation is introduced there are always groups who are in the unfortunate position of not benefiting by it. Here is a dwindling group. The right hon. Gentleman should ask the chairman of his advisory committee to expedite consideration of this matter and to report forthwith. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about this yesterday. He was also asked about it two months ago, and he still says it is being considered. Perhaps by the end of the debate we may have a report from him.
We have heard today about the increasing prosperity of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the country is prosperous. It is difficult, in view of these pronouncements, to understand why the very poorest have not had any mention in the Queen's Speech. Those on National Assistance have not been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; nor were they mentioned in the Tory Election manifesto. Some hope, at least, should be given to the 1¾ million on National Assistance who have recently been so harshly dealt with.
The most striking feature of the Government's proposals for the ensuing Session is the complete omission of any reference, even by a word, to the most helpless in the community, the aged, the disabled, the sick, and the widows. There is no mention of food prices, the control of which would be of inestimable benefit to those in the lowest income groups. There is no mention of any matter of concern to the Ministry of Health, and only one in connection with the Ministry

of Pensions and National Insurance, although those great Ministries form the very foundation of the Welfare State.

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): The subject chosen by the Opposition today, which they wish to debate on the Address, is that of the social services. It is, of course, a very wide subject. I notice that an hon. Member whose maiden speech I was unfortunate to miss yesterday complained that there was no reference at all in the Queen's Speech to the social services. However, "social services" is a very wide and embracing term, and many people—most people, indeed—would include such matters as education, rehousing and slum clearance as social services.
The debate on the Address is the grand inquest of the nation. Hon. Members can and do raise any subject which they please. In intervening in the debate I shall try not to take up an undue amount of the time of the House because I am sure we all look forward to interventions by back benchers who are new to the House—but the Front Benches cannot be altogether ignored, and I would say that word in defence of the Front Bench speeches.
The social services must rest and depend on the foundation of prosperity and productivity, and our productivity and our prosperity rest upon the skill and industry of our people working within a system of free enterprise. It is the enterprise, skill and industry of our people which provide the revenue without which we could not sustain the great social services which the country enjoys at present.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: And pay for the losses in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) ranged over a large number of subjects. I am sure that she knows already, for she has been in the House for quite a long time, that the Queen's Speech is not exclusive. It does not mean that because something is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech it will not be made the subject of legislation during the Session. Nor is it practicable


to put in the first Queen's Speech in the first Session of Parliament everything that a party has, in its election manifesto, promised to do.
Matters of health and the administration of the health services which the right hon. Lady has raised will be dealt with later in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I will say a few words about the proposal regarding family allowances, which is mainly an educational proposal, but as to education generally and housing, I am quite sure that the right hon. Lady would not expect me to add anything to the considerable observations which were made on these two subjects by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the first day's debate on the Address.
The right hon. Lady had a great deal to say about the delays in legislating on the Gowers Report. I think that the House is aware that the Gowers Report involves three separate Measures, one dealing with agriculture and forestry, one dealing with railways, and a third, and perhaps the biggest, dealing with conditions in shops and offices. Included in the Queen's Speech is a proposal for a Bill, founded on the Gowers Report, dealing with agriculture and forestry. I am sure that most people who have given close study to this matter and have followed the increasing accident rates in agriculture, as the industry has become ever more and more mechanised, would agree that it is right to give priority to agriculture in this respect.
The Prime Minister said, and I emphasise it again, that if there should be time in the first Session of Parliament a further Bill dealing with safety and health on the railways would be presented. The third Bill, dealing with shops and offices, is much the biggest. It is almost certain that it will be impossible to introduce it in the first Session.
I remind hon. Members of the magnitude of the subject with which we are dealing. I was in the Home Office in 1939 as Under-Secretary, in the early days of the administration of the new Factories Act, 1938. I remember what an immense amount of work had gone into the preparation of that Statute. I also remember our receiving the Report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines,

1939. We did not get legislation on that until my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Fuel and Power took over the job in 1951.
The fact is that these Measures dealing with safety and health are immensely complicated. Their preparation demands an enormous amount of consultation with trade unionists and employers' organisations and so forth. Not only is there an enormous amount of consultation prior to the introduction of the Measure but, as all hon. Members who have been in this House for a number of years know, these Measures require very detailed scrutiny in Committee. Each of them takes many months in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Harold Davies: The whole point of our arguments and discussions in the last Parliament was that these negotiations had been going on with the T.U.C. for years, and that there are more or less streamlined drafts of these Bills in the Home Office all ready to be placed before Ministers.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend not be deflected from giving priority to dealing with agriculture and forestry, for it is there that the loss of life through accidents is occurring? There is no such loss of life in offices and shops.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member is evidently not aware of the accidents. disease and ill-health in other types of industry, and that if we on this side of the House had not pressed the claims of agriculture they would not have been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for the party opposite lost ground in the rural areas.

Mr. Peake: I assure the House that we are most anxious to get on with this legislation at the earliest possible moment. It is out of the question to have two of these enormous Bills proceeding through the House at the same time.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington said a few words in her speech about National Insurance and National Assistance, for which I answer in the House. I should like to say something about the review of the main National Insurance Scheme. When the Scheme was framed, provision was made, by Sections 39 and 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, not only for annual


reports by the Government Actuary, but for a grand financial inquest at five yearly intervals and a report which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to lay before Parliament. As soon as may be afterwards, the Minister is required by the Act to review the rates and amounts of benefit. The first of these statutory reviews fell to be made last year. It was completed when I made my report to Parliament last December.
I was able, at that time, to announce the Government's decision to give effect to my conclusion. In consequence, the National Insurance benefits and pension rates have been increased to figures which compare favourably in value with those originally proposed in 1946 and, of course, they are substantially higher than those which came into operation in 1948. There was, however, for a long time—under the previous Government, under the administration of the right hon. Lady—

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman represented the previous Government, the one before the present Government.

Mr. Peake: I was speaking of the Government previous to the one of which I was a member last December.
There was an understanding, both under the administration of the right hon. Lady and under the administration of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that, whoever was Minister at the time of the first statutory review of benefit rates, there would also be an examination of the Scheme as a whole, especially those parts of it which were novelties in our social insurance system, to see whether improvements of a structural character could or should be made.
It is about this non-statutory part of the review that I want to make the position clear hut, of course, anybody holding my office is bound to have the benefit rates under constant review. He would be a very lucky man if he had to defend them to the House only once a year. Nor is there anything to prevent the Minister from proposing to the House at any time adjustments in benefit rates which seem necessary.

Mr. Shurmer: There is need for adjustments.

Mr. Peake: Legislation to alter benefit rates was passed three times before the

first statutory review was made. This non-statutory review is something, of course, which is continuous. Suggestions are made to us. Difficulties and apparent anomalies are brought to our notice, and I and my officials study them. We do not wait for five years or one year to do this, even though I may conclude that no immediate action is required. On the other hand, I may think the issue is sufficiently serious to justify fresh regulations being made or even coming to the House to ask for amending legislation, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly did in 1949 to correct an unintended difficulty in the death grant provisions.
That the Scheme would be under this continual scrutiny was indeed envisaged in the 1946 Act, which embodied unique provisions for the scrutiny and public examination of the Regulations which were to give detailed effect to such a very large part of the Scheme. Under the Act I have to appoint the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Proposals for new or amending regulations have to be sent to the Committee in draft. They are published by them with an invitation to any interested person or body to make representations, and thereafter are reported to me by the Committee. Under the Statute I have to lay the Committee's reports before Parliament along with the substantive regulations, and I have to justify in a covering statement any departure from the advice given to me by the Advisory Committee. In practice I find that I and my predecessors have laid before Parliament no fewer than 70 Reports by the Committee on draft Regulations.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is within the competence or jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee to deal with a difficult administrative point, which arouses a good deal of feeling not limited to one side of the House. The point was dealt with a little at Question Time yesterday in relation to the increased statutory basic rates of pension, which were intended to do the job that was explained by the Minister in moving the Bill dealing with them. However, they have left the anomaly that the people who are the hardest hit by the rise in the cost of living, which this increase was intended to cover, get little or no benefit out of the compensating


increase. It is stated that that is the business of the National Assistance Board. What I am asking the Minister now is whether it would be competent for the Advisory Committee to make a report about a matter of that kind so as to bring back into the jurisdiction of the House matters which are at the moment excluded by the exclusive responsibility of the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Peake: I think the short answer is that the Committee considers matters which are remitted to it by the Minister, and that, broadly speaking, Ministers have not referred to the Committee questions of benefit rates because under the Act these have to be dealt with under the statutory provisions laid down in Sections 39 and 40 of the principal Act.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether I made myself quite clear, but my point concerns the extent to which people on National Assistance fail to benefit by the increase in benefit rates. What I am asking is whether the Minister could ask the Advisory Committee to make a report about that.

Mr. Peake: No, I do not think that would come within the purview of the Committee because the instruction to take into account the National Insurance benefit in computing the amount of Assistance is contained under Section 4 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.

Mr. Silverman: Can anything be done by the Minister about it?

Mr. Peake: What I am describing is the rather elaborate procedure under which matters are referred to this most useful body, the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
Section 41 of the Act envisages that the Committee will be asked to advise more generally on questions arising under the Scheme, including proposals for amendment of the Act. Ten Reports of the Committee on such general questions were made to the end of 1953, all of which were published as Command Papers and put into effect, usually in Regulations, but in one case, that of maternity proposals, by way of legislation.
When I considered the best way of carrying out what I have called the non-statutory review of the Scheme I clearly

could not have ignored the position of the Advisory Committee. But first I asked my officials to carry out a re-examination of all the provisions of the Scheme, taking account of criticisms and suggestions noted in the course of day-to-day administration. Particular note was taken—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly has often asked me about this—of suggestions from local advisory committees. They totalled nearly 1,000 in number.
Having studied all this material I selected certain topics for formal review by the Committee. In making references to the Advisory Committee I excluded, as did predecessors of mine, all rates of benefit, since these are covered by the statutory review. Secondly, I excluded matters which were bound to be the subject of consideration by the Phillips Committee in its very much wider review of a very much wider question. When the right hon. Gentleman asks me about the provision of a day for a discussion of the Phillips Committee Report, I would reply that such a suggestion was thrown out by me in the House before Christmas. We are now in a new Parliament, and I am just as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman for the subject to be discussed. I think it might be taken up through the usual channels to see if time can be made available.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I propose to ask only one question. Can I take it from the remarks which the Minister has just addressed to us that he regards himself as having fulfilled the tasks laid upon him by Parliament, under Section 40, by the Report which he presented to us last December? Are we not to have a far more comprehensive report than the couple of sheets which he produced last December? Is that the effect of the Minister's reply?

Mr. Peake: I have fulfilled the duty laid upon me by the Statute under Section 40, but I am carrying out the obligations laid upon my predecessors and myself to review the structure of the scheme, and I want to go on and tell the House, because this is important, of the structural matters which are before the Advisory Committee, and what the prospects are of getting reports upon it with a view ultimately to some amending legislation.
I have to avoid overloading the Committee with work which it could not undertake. In the result the Committee has four groups of questions before it. The first is a re-examination of all the provisions governing the payment of sickness and unemployment benefit for short spells. This includes such matters as waiting days, the rules for linking separate short periods of sickness and unemployment, the holiday rules and the payment of benefit in relation to provision made by employers, for example, by guarantees of wages during underemployment. These are clearly difficult and technical matters as well as being important to many of the contributors to the Scheme.
The second question I have referred to the Committee, and upon which it has already reported, is the liability for contributions of persons with small incomes. That is a fundamental question in a universal insurance scheme. As the House knows, I have received the Committee's Report, and the recommendations have already been carried into law. The third question before the Committee is what are called contribution conditions. This Scheme is an insurance scheme. That means that the individual insured person's right to the various benefits is regulated by his own record as a contributor.
The fourth question which I have referred to the Committee is one in which the House is most interested, and that is the provisions governing widows' benefits and the increase of benefit for dependants of all kinds. This is a much wider question than that of the 10s. widow, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who has experience in these matters, will appreciate. It is clearly a most important part of the review, touching as it does so directly the welfare of those who are often least able to fend for themselves. Attention has seemed to be most concentrated on the widowhood provisions, and especially the position of the 10s. widows.
Vital points come up for consideration under the other part of the reference. To mention only a few, there are the circumstances in which a person can be reckoned as a dependent, there is the degree of relationship to the dependent, there is the question of the child at school and the position following separation or divorce.
Now a word about the position of widows. The scheme for widows embodied in the 1946 Act was entirely novel. Instead of a rather inadequate flat rate benefit, payable to all widows regardless of their circumstances, there was substituted a more discriminating scheme which sought to select for a more adequate provision those widows whose circumstances were such as to make it difficult or impossible for them to maintain themselves by their own efforts.
I am sure that the new principle is right, but it is clearly not possible to discriminate in this way without creating awkward borderlines which give rise to a sense of grievance. It is implicit in the new approach that the young, able-bodied, childless widow shall not get a life pension, but should he expected to maintain herself in work after a resettlement period, for which a special benefit is provided.
Taking the long view, it is these permanent provisions which are the most important part of the Advisory Committee's review, and I should like to say how much I appreciated the constructive speeches made in the debate last December by the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and Leeds. South-East (Miss Bacon), who spoke on this subject with a good deal of knowledge.
There is also the problem, of which we heard something during the General Election, of the 10s. widow, who does not qualify for a continuing pension under the new scheme, but who is either still getting the pension under the old scheme which she was awarded before 1948 or is one of the increasing proportion of these widows who have, by a special concession given by the right hon. Member for Llanelly when he was Minister, retained their rights from the old scheme despite their failure to qualify under the new provisions.
The problem of these widows is especially difficult, and that is a part of the remit of the Committee. The whole question is one of considerable difficulty, and, in fact, I have invited hon. Members to give me their views about this matter, because I think it is very important that, if we are to reframe widows' provisions of this scheme as we reframed the maternity provisions two or three years ago, we should get something which is


generally acceptable in all quarters of the House.
The right hon. Lady asked me to say a word about the proposal in the Queen's Speech in regard to the raising of the age for family allowances. Broadly speaking, what we have in mind is that the age should be 18. After all, a family allowance scheme is in respect of children, and to go on counting people as children for family allowance purposes after they are qualified for National Service under the National Service Scheme would seem to be going rather far. We shall prepare our proposals, and the House will see them just as soon as the Bill can be introduced. I cannot, however, hold out any hope of it being introduced before we adjourn for the summer Recess.

Sir Frederick Messer: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there will be provision in the Bill for the handicapped child, whose period at school is one year longer than that of the normal child, and in whose case, at the moment, no family allowance is paid?

Mr. Peake: I think I know the point which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has in mind. Certainly, we are going to make some provision in the Bill for handicapped children, in respect of whom I have given undertakings previously in the House. One of the reasons why we cannot introduce the Bill forthwith is that there are these questions of what other alterations, if any, in the family allowances scheme should be included in the Bill.

Dr. Horace King: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the most difficult case, which is that of the child so handicapped that it cannot go to a special school at all and is even more dependent on its parents?

Mr. Peake: Yes, that is a particular case which I have most in my mind at the present time.
I do not know that I need say very much about the proposals, to which the right hon. Lady scarcely referred, in the Socialist election manifesto. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Llanelly wish me to address myself to that? As I understand their proposals, they were that we should do away with

the National Assistance Board and merge it in a Ministry to be called the Ministry of Social Welfare. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman had considered, when he put forward that proposal, that the Ministry of National Insurance has already been merged in the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Oh, yes.

Mr. Peake: The new name of the Ministry is the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and, in the eyes of the public, I am simply the Minister of Pensions, in the same way as the Minister of Labour is, it is always forgotten, the Minister of Labour and National Service. Therefore, it seems to me that there is not very much in the point about changing the name of the Ministry.
I should certainly be more concerned about a proposal to abolish the National Assistance Board. The Board was set up with that particular name as recently as 1948, when it was sponsored by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it has built up an immense fund of good will. It is immensely highly spoken of by ordinary men and women, and I myself have received deputations of old-age pensioners who have told me that the Assistance Board is the old-age pensioners' best friend.

Mr. Griffiths: I am very glad that the Minister will deal with that point, and I hope, if I am fortunate in catching the eye of Mr. Speaker, to say something about it myself. We quite agree about the good will which the Board has built up, and all we are suggesting is whether, in the light of experience, we might be justified in this change of name. I do not think anyone denies that the Assistance Board and its officers have done a very good job, and it is not on that account that we are proposing this change. We had better get it quite clear that we are not casting any reflections on the Assistance Board.

Mr. Peake: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Personally, I have the greatest confidence in the National Assistance Board, and I believe that the arrangements devised, reinforced and built up over the years, starting in 1934, when it was called the Unemployment Assistance Board, and again in 1940, when the name


was changed to Assistance Board, and finally, in 1948, when it was rechristened the National Assistance Board, are excellent, and have worked extremely well. The Board's name stands high with the people of this country, and I personally think that it would be a great mistake to abolish the National Assistance Board at this stage.

Mr. Shurmer: The question is not one of abolishing the Assistance Board. Everyone, no matter in what district he lives, realises the helpful attitude of the Assistance Board officials, and there are no complaints. Certainly, I could not make any complaint so far as Birmingham is concerned, because they have been very good. The question is whether we should try again to remove that supposed stigma, because there are still thousands of people who will not go to the Assistance Board, but who might do so if the name were changed. There could be no harm in it, because we cannot yet remove that stigma, because of which some people are not prepared to go to the Assistance Board. I am not complaining about the Assistance Board; I have every faith in it.

Mr. Peake: I, too, shall look forward to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Llanelly this evening, because I should like to know the reasons which made him change his mind over this question since 1948, when he was a party to the establishment of these arrangements.

Mr. Shurmer: Experience.

Mr. Peake: One word about National Assistance scales. The right hon. Lady complained—I do not think she could have been serious about this—that there was nothing in the Gracious Speech about the National Assistance scales. Surely, with her knowledge of the Acts and her experience as an administrator, she would not expect to find those scales in the Speech from the Throne. She knows perfectly well that the initiative for the promotion of new scales rests with the National Assistance Board and is a purely administrative matter.

Dr. Summerskill: By admitting that, has not the right hon. Gentleman recognised the case for the merging of Insurance and Assistance? He always

comes here and says to hon. Members on this side of the House, "I have no power in these matters." He accepts the fact that there might be some hardship but he says that he has no power. Then, when we suggest merging Assistance and Insurance, he asks what is the reason for doing it. It is precisely to give him more power so that he need not make the kind of speech he is making now.

Mr. Peake: But when the right hon. Lady complained that there was no reference to National Assistance scales in the Gracious Speech I am sure she did not mean what she was saying. If it were her proposal, or the proposal of her party, that no change could be made in the Assistance scales until legislation had been passed by this House, that would be injurious to the interests of the people concerned.
Throughout the last Parliament, when I was Minister of National Insurance, my main concern was about the numbers having to seek National Assistance. These had been increasing year by year and month by month ever since 1946.

Mr. Shurmer: Since 1951.

Mr. Peake: Well, I will give the hon. Gentleman a few figures.
I was concerned about this matter because if the numbers on Assistance were to continue to grow, there would come a time when our great system of National Insurance would be undermined and destroyed. What did I find? I found that in the 3¼ years between the establishment of the National Assistance Board in July, 1948, and the General Election of October, 1951, the number of allowances in payment had increased by no fewer than 580,000, and as one allowance often covers the needs of more than one person, that represents an increase of about 900,000.

Mr. S. Silverman: As compared with what?

Mr. Peake: As compared with about 1 million in 1948.
What has happened today? Today, and partly as a result of the recent changes, it will be found that as compared with that increase of 580,000 in the number of allowances in payment under the Socialist Government, the increase in a similar period under the Conservative


Government has been only 150,000 or about a quarter of the number under the Socialist Government during a similar period. Hon. Members may like to know that the numbers going to the Board today are lower than at any time since November, 1952, 2½ years ago.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. J. Griffiths rose—

Mr. Peake: Would the right hon. Gentleman like a figure?

Mr. Griffiths: I should like one figure because it is relative to the major debate in which I hope to take part this evening. Can the Minister tell us how many fewer old-age pensioners are, as a result of the recent increase in the basic old-age pension, now asking for Assistance?

Mr. Peake: The direct result of the changes recently made in the pensions scales, the scales of benefit and so on, has been that about 111,000 persons fewer are drawing Assistance today. Quite apart from these changes, due directly to what we have done on the Insurance side. the fact that the numbers on Assistance are stabilised is a very hopeful sign for the future.
I believe that, with the growing number of pensioners now coming on to pensions with pensions increased by virtue of having deferred their retirement beyond the minimum age, with the increased number of persons coming on to pension today who have also an occupational or supplementary pension from their previous employment, and with the recovery in thrift and saving which is proceeding at the present tme, there is every sign that we can look forward to a steady reduction in the numbers drawing and having to draw National Assistance in the future. I believe also that we may make a considerable approach to the Beveridge idea of a society in which the means test is hardly ever exercised.
We can claim that much has already been done to rebuild our social services. The value of pensions and benefits, which had fallen steadily before we took over 3½ years ago, is now fully restored and provides better purchasing power than ever before. There is still much to do. In this first Session of the new Parliament the main emphasis will be on education and on housing, but we believe that, given

freedom from industrial disputes, given a reasonably steady cost of living and increased productivity, we can look forward to a better future for the beneficiaries of the social services.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Minister tell the House how he proposes to deal with the clear anomaly which emerges from his speech? The anomaly is that the National Assistance Board cannot deal with the poorer class of old-age pensioner because the Statute compels it to take the full pension into account. On the other hand, the Minister is unable to deal with the National Assistance scales because he is forbidden by Statute to interfere with the operations of the National Assistance Board in fixing those scales. In that situation, how does he propose to deal with the hundreds and thousands of old-age pensioners who, by hypothesis, most need the Assistance which they are now clearly not getting?

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is the most pressing problem of the day.

Mr. Peake: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this system was set up by the Government which he supported, and that exactly the same thing happened as regards the adjustment of the Assistance grant to the Insurance benefit both in 1946, and again in 1950.

Mr. Nabarro: Ask Uncle Jim Griffiths.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I ask for the indulgence of hon. Members, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I must ask the House to listen to another maiden speech. I come from Bootle and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) will tell you, Bootle is the best part of Liverpool. The largest and most important docks on Merseyside are in the borders of my town, which is in a great industrial part of Lancashire. I am not so much concerned about saying such things as about trying to be non-controversial when I come from a town like Bootle, where every foot of the road I have trodden has been contested at one time or another. However, I can promise the House that whatever I say will be said without bitterness or rancour.
In 1945 and 1946, when we came back from the war, we found a town which


had suffered greatly from bombing, dislocation of industry and all the other things which hon. Members know so well. Examining the social statistics of my town, I found that we had terrible figures for tuberculosis and infant and maternal mortality; we were the champions of the British Isles in these matters. More people were suffering from and dying from tuberculosis in Bootle than anywhere else. We attracted the attention of the national Press in a semi-castigation of our efforts because of our high infantile mortality.
We have made efforts to combat this, and I want to pay my respects to successive Governments in saying that we have received help of considerable dimensions—and we need it. The whole of our atmosphere is one of social and industrial unrest. I have some comments to make on the social aspect, but before I do that I want to say something about the industrial unrest existing on Merseyside. I shall not enter the field of controversy in this matter, as we have been requested not to do.
I have been a trade unionist for many years. My family must have 80 years' of public service and 100 years' of trade unionism to date. If I were asked what was wrong with industry today, I should say that in the depression years our people were dehumanised by poverty, and, also, there is a possibility that we shall become depersonalised in this day of full employment. We are entitled to full employment. It is neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party which has given us the right to full employment. I believe that I was made to the image and likeness of God, and that it was God who gave me the right to work. It did not come from Governments. The duty of government is to bring about a greater degree of social justice in industry and a greater human personalisation for everyone in industry. If this matter were examined by experts, there would be a greater possibility of bringing into industry in the very near future the peace that we all desire so very greatly. Men are "fed up" with being economic ciphers and units of production.
I come from a big family; there were ten of us. I object to anybody saying that I am a participant in class warfare. It was with great regret that I heard such

a remark as that on my first day in this House. I do not believe in class warfare at all, but I was born into class warfare. I think it is becoming a matter for the people who have more of this world's goods to stop the class warfare rather than to talk about it to those who have less of the world's goods. I am saying this so that hon. Members may understand the sort of people I represent. They are ordinary, poor working-class people, and I understand my own town and my own people fairly well.
I have a considerable knowledge of the housing situation. I appeal to whatever Government happen to be in power to build houses for families and to raise existing standards. Family life is the very essence and basis of our nation, and a better type of house should be built now that some of the tremendous difficulties of the post-war years have been overcome. I have brought the difficulties of my own people with me, and I want to say something about them. Sixty houses to an acre cannot be endured in this age. I hear people talking about atomic power, nuclear fission, and so on, but there are people in the town where I was born who have not yet had the pleasure of seeing hot water running out of a tap. It is just as well for some of us to remember that now and then. Therefore, in spite of the help that we have had—and we have had a considerable amount—I suggest that legislation to deal with slum clearance should be hastened, and that local authorities should be given power to ensure that people with a foreknowledge of what is likely to happen are not selling houses in clearance areas at great profit.
I want to make a special appeal. Recently, I had the difficult task of trying to retain possession of a house for a woman who had had a clear rent book for 47 years. Such things as this have been spoken about before. What immorality they represent! The woman had lived a decent family life in the house for 47 years. Her only boy was killed at Caen. Her husband died, and at the very time of her bereavement she was evicted from the house. Does that action mirror the sentiments of any decent person in this House or in the country? Indeed, it does not. Responsibility for these matters must be clarified; apart from the tremendous burden placed upon local authorities, the morality of these things must be examined.
People are becoming tired of other people talking about laws. Some of us are beginning to think that laws are just a recognition of the dominant force, and if the dominant force is not a moral force the law becomes immoral. I suggest that the law in this respect is completely immoral. Let us try to make housing the social service which it should be in this great country of social service which is the envy of the world. Let us give local authorities money at a more reasonable rate, for there is a tremendous burden upon them.
The waterfront of Bootle is occupied by docks, which are derated. I want, briefly, to give the House some figures to show the position of a town such as ours which is trying to face great educational, social and industrial problems when denuded of more than a quarter of its rateable value. Bootle's net annual value is £819,680, its rateable value is £590,163, and its loss on derating is £229,517, a figure which represents 28 per cent. of the net annual value. Fifty per cent. of this loss is due to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. In these days no one would say that this Board is not a very thriving and flourishing concern. Its net annual value is £167,404, but its rateable value is £48,562. The loss by derating is £118,842, or 71 per cent. of the net annual value of the dock estate.
Are we to have no help? We had none after the war, when our town was bombed and knocked about by the enemy. There are other towns like Bootle. The present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, told me at Southport on one occasion that there were other towns like Bootle. We received a considerable amount of help from him. We have received help from other Governments. There are other towns like Bootle and my appeal is for consideration at all times for all the towns which are carrying so much of the country's burden.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon), my hon. Friends will envy me this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on what he has said. I am grateful for being able to do so, and I am only

sorry that the hon. Member should be sitting on the wrong side of the House. Perhaps he will see the light before very long. I must also offer him my respectful congratulations on so quickly and successfully taking the first fence in the House. Possibly the proximity of his constituency to Aintree has given him the necessary impetus.
I am constantly astonished, when I listen to maiden speeches, at the ease with which an hon. Member makes his points. That was evidenced again in the case today, when the hon. Member showed great fluency in putting his case for Bootle. He did it with an obvious sincerity which permeated all his remarks, as did the humanity he has shown for those for whom he speaks. I hope—and I am sure that my hope is shared by all hon. Members—that we shall have many opportunities of hearing him again, especially when he is not under the handicap of making a non-controversial speech.
I know that this debate is supposed to be largely devoted to the social services, but before dealing with that subject I want shortly to refer to the speech which the Prime Minister made last Thursday. Among other things, he analysed the reasons we had won the Election. In that analysis he was characteristically modest. In my judgment, the Election was won on three main issues. The first was the humanity, integrity and sincerity of the Prime Minister himself which, as every day passed, had an ever greater impact on the people. The second was the obvious existence of so many television aerials and, therefore, television sets, particularly in council houses, which effectively demolished the fallacious propaganda about the cost of living. Thirdly, there was the fact that at last the country had had an opportunity of comparing life under the Socialists and life under the Tories. The country preferred life under the Tories; the country preferred Conservative freedoms to Socialist controls.
I come now to the specific subjects which we are debating today, and I will limit my remarks to two of them with which the Minister did not deal. My experience during the Election taught me that they are vital to a great number of our people. One is education and the other is nursing. Both were incidentally


touched upon in a maiden speech yesterday. As we know, many improvements have undoubtedly been recorded for both education and the nursing service in the last few years, but I believe that the hopes of many of us, based upon those improvements, have not been fully fulfilled.
Of course, in both cases the main reasons are undoubtedly the conditions of service in each profession and their financial rewards. Indeed, I have never ceased to wonder at the amazing anomaly of treating these two great professions, one of which is charged with the physical well-being of our people and the other with the mental or moral development of our children and ourselves, with less concern than we do many unskilled and relatively unimportant labourers.
I have never been able to understand it. Time after time Government after Government passed on, and so far we have made only the most petty advances in the financial rewards which are offered to student nurses or trainee teachers. Having said that, I need hardly go on to make the point that teachers are grossly underpaid As a result, we are forced to utilise uncertificated teachers, many of whom should still be learning instead of teaching. We are compelled to call upon those in retirement to return to service. We refuse to pay them monthly—and that is another extraordinary anomaly.
I wonder what dockers, or railwaymen, or Members of Parliament would say if they could not get their pay monthly, but had to wait for it quarterly. I hope that we will get an explanation, because this topic has been raised on one or two occasions before and no satisfactory reason, except so-called technical difficulties, has been advanced. If there were a strike in the teaching profession, we would hear no more about those difficulties. Again, we base the retirement pension of the teachers not on modern costs of living or conditions of life, but on what were the conditions of life and the costs of living twenty or thirty years ago. That is obviously wrong.
We have never yet devised an adequate system for dealing with the widows and dependants of those who have given their lives to this great profession. I am not complaining of this or any other Government, but of the House as a whole. We have never really bent our minds to

dealing with this problem, simply because there was no strike; there is no industrial impetus behind it. Neither teachers nor nurses ever do strike. Thank goodness they do not. It would be a bad day for this country if they did.
Now for the nurses. During the Election I found time, happily, to read a daily journal which I do not normally patronise. During an Election one has to keep one's eye on many papers one would not normally read. I am particularly mindful of the last two Elections when this particular journal, the "Daily Mirror," was somewhat of a pest.
I found in this journal the report of an interview with the matron of the Christie Hospital, in Manchester. It worried me so much that I made some inquiries and found that the trouble to which it referred arose from a circular issued by the Ministry of Health—I hope my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to what I am saying—which created precisely the same situation as that about which I have just been complaining in respect of uncertificated teachers. It mentioned that unqualified nurses would be recognised as suitable to engage in nursing.
This position is almost exactly comparable to that of uncertificated teachers. They are to be recognised and there is to be practically no differential between them and the highly skilled and highly qualified teachers and nurses. They are being recognised as fitted to perform the same duties and to carry out the same heavy obligations. These unqualified persons are being given the same status and conditions of service, and this accentuates the lack of differential, which is the very point which has caused the railway strike.

Mr. R. Moss: Is it not true that uncertificated teachers are recognised only when their experience is equivalent to the necessary qualifications? I have known many excellent uncertificated teachers.

Sir T. Moore: I have no doubt that the hon. Member knows many uncertificated teachers who are admirable at their job, but if we lay down certain standards to which persons must aspire in order to reach a certain standard of pay and treatment we must observe them. Once we drift away we create a situation in which persons are paid to do jobs which they are not qualified to do.
I have before me a statement giving certain detailed information about pay, the system of service and conditions in the nursing service. It is too long to burden the House with it, but I propose to hand it to the Minister afterwards, because it makes very unhappy reading. I must, however, justify my statement about the lack of differential between unqualified nurses and staff nurses. An unqualified nurse of 21 years of age, working 48 hours a week, receives £315 a year. A fully qualified staff nurse, with three years' training and all the care of human lives in her charge, receives £385 a year, and she also has to pay more for living-in. The differential is obviously too small to compensate for the assiduous training that women must undergo to reach the required standard.
I want to read one paragraph from a letter which I have received from a matron of whom I made inquiries about this matter. I asked her, first, to give me the facts from her own personal experience, and then to lay down what she considered to be certain minimum standards of treatment for the profession. This is what she said:
Good, comfortable living accommodation with one bedroom per nurse would make for contentment.
She also said that nurses should be provided with up-to-date appliances for lifting heavy patients, and that the bathroom and ward kitchen accommodation is too small and inadequate. These are matters which experience has taught her to be necessary, and that should be of some value to the Minister. She further states that all nurses complain of the large amount of money deducted for board and lodging when they are resident nurses.
Finally, I asked her what incentive she thought should be offered to bring young women into the profession and make them proud and happy. She said, that they first had to be given an incentive to train and that they should have:
… a living wage, pleasant accommodation, reasonable time to study, and facilities to help in the nursing of patients … with the incentive on qualifying, of a good status, salary and conditions in line with other professional and business women.
I think that that is a very moderate and reasonable demand, and I am perfectly sure that the Minister will give the matter his full attention.
I believe that I have said enough to make this House realise that if we and our children are to get proper treatment for our physical well-being, and a proper development of our mental and moral faculties, we must do something to make these professions and the people who enter them worthy of each other.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As a new Member of the House, I crave its indulgence for my lack of experience. There is a matter of growing seriousness which is, unfortunately, not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and about which many hon. Members will have no knowledge at all. I have recently been making a number of night journeys by lorry between London and the North, to investigate what is happening to the vehicles which British Road Services have been forced to sell. Many of these vehicles have become killer lorries, as I intend to show.
The maximum number of hours permitted by law for driving a heavy lorry is 11 per day or night. In my view that is quite sufficient because of the great strain involved. Thousands of these sold lorries, however, are working for 12, 14, 16 or 18 hours out of the 24, with tragic results. Under British Road Services the system is for a driver to leave, say, Manchester at seven o'clock at night, take his loaded lorry to London, and arrive at the British Road Services depot in north London at seven o'clock in the morning. Thereafter, he goes to his "digs," gets some sleep, and has the opportunity for some leisure before restarting work at seven o'clock the same night.
In the meanwhile, another driver—a shunt driver with experience of the streets of London—will have picked up the loaded lorry from the depot and delivered the load—let us say to a factory on the south side of the Thames. He will have unloaded the lorry, travelled to another factory or warehouse or the docks, picked up a fresh load and will have taken it back to the depot in north London, whereupon at seven o'clock at night the night driver, the trunk driver, takes it back to Manchester.
Today, under private enterprise, all these processes are being done by one driver. As one can imagine, in view of the fantastic hours which are being


worked, it is impossible for the driver to maintain the necessary alertness at the wheel. I have seen men nodding in the cabs, I have seen lorries veering across the roads. In a recent journey I saw three serious crashes. One lorry had run right across the road and through the hedge on its offside. That indicates how far the driver was off his course.
A policeman encounters a lorry parked on the roadside with its headlights blazing. He goes to see what is the trouble and he finds nobody moving. He looks inside the cab and finds the driver slumped across the steering wheel flat out. The man had been too tired even to switch off the headlights. There is a shop some miles north of London which has been crashed into by vehicles 26 times. Admittedly at that point the road is extremely narrow and that might provide some excuse, but it is, in the main, tired drivers who are responsible for crashing into it.
I should like to give some information which requires serious attention. At a recent inquest on a driver killed in a lorry crash it was shown that of the last 110 hours of his life he had spent 92 in the cab of his lorry. I should like to invite the Minister of Transport to accompany me on a night trip of that kind. I may say that the night life on the roads and in the all-night cafés is very interesting, in more senses than one, but there are features which would shock the right hon. Gentleman. He would see parked along A.5, A.6, and the other main roads, hundreds of lorries, with their drivers in the cabs snatching a few hours sleep. If these men were working normal hours that would not be happening. These drivers are described as the "night-and-day wallahs."
The really guilty men are the owners of the private firms who encourage the men in these practices. Often the lorries are not properly maintained. Under British Road Services, which directly honoured the regulations governing hours of work, the lorries received regular maintenance and overhaul which are vital to safety. That work is not being continued.
Again, some lorries are being grossly overloaded. If there are many tons too much on the back of a lorry it is impossible for the driver to pull up in time

in an emergency. As a result, the accident rate is soaring. I repeat that I have no personal interest in the matter, but I would say that British Road Services did a magnificent job. In the first two years of its operations it reduced by 25 per cent. the number of accidents causing injury in which its lorries were involved. It reduced by 40 per cent. the number of accidents causing death in which its lorries were involved. Today, however, the accident rate is growing.
I want the House to know how bitterly my lorry driver friends feel about this as they see all the pre-war evils of the road returning. Their view, and it is one which I share, is that the only effective solution to this problem is that the Government should stop the sale of any further British Road Services' lorries, and that those already sold should be returned to public ownership.
I wish to refer to one other subject—the intolerable housing conditions in which millions of our people have to live. In the City of Manchester an average of two houses collapse every day because the walls are too old and too tired to bear the strain of supporting the roofs any longer. In the City of Salford, which adjoins Manchester, and the eastern part of which I have the honour to represent, the housing conditions are worse.
Recently a house collapsed on a 79year-old bedridden widow. Miraculously she was brought out unhurt. It so happens that a moment before the roof collapsed the rent collector was at the door, and he jumped clear in time. Incredible as it may seem, five minutes later, after the dust had settled, he nipped back and calmly collected the 10s. 1d. rent from a member of the family. I know that because I was there half an hour later, and I saw the 10s. I d. marked in the rent book.
Salford is a city largely inhabited by men who have dirty jobs—rubber workers, engineering workers, dockers and textile workers—yet in that city three out of every five houses have no baths, most of them have no hot water supply and the rooms are so damp, certainly in the southern wards, that the children are seldom free from sickness. I have seen water pouring through the roofs and oozing from the walls, which in many instances are studded with rat holes. One can see marks on the furniture where the rats have gnawed.
Is it right that mothers should have the job of trying to bring up children in conditions like that? In the old days we heard about tenants doing a "moonlight flit." In Salford today it is often the landlord who is doing a "moonlight flit." There are whole streets with no landlords. They have left the houses in a shocking condition. The only way to deal with the problem is to arrange that all the houses should be owned by the local authority.
My experience of life, which has been very varied, has taught me that those who do the hardest, dirtiest, most dangerous and most important jobs usually receive the worst pay, the worst treatment and the worst conditions. I plead that a greater share of the nation's wealth should be devoted to industrial cities, such as Salford, where these workers have to live.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I find myself in a somewhat strange position, since it was not many months ago that I had the same experience as the hon. Member for Salford. East (Mr. Allaun) has just had. It is, therefore, with great pleasure, but at the same time a full realisation of my own limitations and lack of experience, that I offer to him sincere congratulations on behalf of this House on his remarkable knowledge and the sincerity with which he spoke in this House for the first time.
Particularly, I admire him for the way in which he was able to speak without any notes. That is something which I frequently try to do but it usually results in serious pitfalls. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Salford, East on the moderate manner in which he voiced his remarks. I cannot claim that they were absolutely non-controversial. In fact, that was the comment made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) after I had made my own maiden speech, and I can therefore return the same compliment to the hon. Member for Salford, East.
During the recent Election campaign I heard one or two comments about the sale of British Road Service vehicles, the taking over of rent-controlled houses by local authorities, and so on, with which I did not find myself in absolute agreement, but which were the subject of fairly

lengthy discussions, not always entirely non-controversial. I congratulate the hon. Member on his moderation, because I have discovered, during the short time that I have been a Member of the House, that moderation is respected, though it is not always easy to remain completely apart from the enthusiasm which is natural to those who speak on subjects which cause them concern.
I wish to refer to something mentioned by the hon. Member in his concluding remarks, the slum conditions which he has found in his own constituency. I have not had the pleasure of visiting his constituency, but not so long ago I contested a London constituency, and I saw there some of the bad housing conditions. I was contesting a Parliamentary by-election when the Housing Repairs and Rents Act was first introduced as a Bill by the late Government. I remember that there was a cry from many people in the constituency—notably from my political opponents—that it would bring a great reward to the landlords in that area.
I saw the condition of the houses and met most of the landlords. I am certain that the hon. Member will agree that in many instances these landlords are people of small means and not wealthy men; people who perhaps own only one property, and in many cases live either in the basement flat or in some other part of it.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, in a speech which he made in this House the other day,
The worker returns home to a house which he may have been forced to purchase as part of the Conservative policy of a property-owning democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 174.]
However it may be that the person came into ownership of the property, in many instances such property is owned by people who have, in one way or another, come to invest their savings, or a small sum of capital which they have inherited, in a dwelling-house; and in many instances they live in part of it, and let the remainder.
I know that there is a great need for these people to be encouraged still more to carry out repairs to property which in many cases is almost beyond repair. I particularly welcome the reference in


the Gracious Speech to the steps to be taken to extend legal aid in county court proceedings. I should also like to see an early extension of free legal advice and assistance. I am not a lawyer, and I do not understand the actual proceedings in these matters. I speak entirely as a layman and as one who, if only for a short time, has represented a constituency in which there are many small land owners and property owners.
In Bournemouth one does not so much find large estates owned by one or two particularly lucky individuals or companies. It is much more the case that a house, or two or three houses, may be owned by people of small means; many being elderly people who have invested their savings in such property and who have come to spend their last years in that part of the country. Since I have been their representative, many cases have been brought to my notice of small landlords who do not fully understand the working of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, the landlord and tenant Acts, and all the other complicated legislation with which they have to deal today.
They seek protection of some sort against the tenants, and that is an extraordinary situation. An enormous amount of legislation has been built up in order to protect the tenant. While I fully support that, my experience has been more of landlords seeking protection against their tenants, or of trying to secure sonic kind of control over their property. They have met with great difficulties, and I will give one or two brief examples of what I mean.
A case came to my notice of a gentleman who became the sub-tenant of a property. He then used what little capital he had to purchase the house of which he was the sub-tenant. I am told that, technically, he still remained the subtenant and so could not secure any sort of control over the tenant. The tenant, a single man, remained in possession of three rooms. The sub-tenant, who had a family, had two rooms. The sub-tenant tried to secure an exchange of accommodation, but could not do so. When his young family was increased by a third child he found he could no longer live in the two-room accommodation which he had in his own house. Yet he was not able to obtain any help from the local authority, because he was a

property owner. That is a case of considerable hardship which is not covered by the present legislation.
There was also the case of a landlord whose tenant kept the property in a very poor state of repair. In trying to secure an eviction order against the tenant, the landlord threatened to take the matter to court. The tenant, however, went to the rent tribunal to secure a reduction of his rent, and the landlord not only had a tenant who was not a good tenant, but also had the further imposition of having the rent reduced by order of the tribunal.
Then there was the case of a very small landlord, an old-age pensioner. This man and his wife together invested their entire capital of £3,050 in a small house. Three years after they had bought the house and a tenancy had been agreed, the tenant suddenly realised that he could live in that property at a much lower fixed rent. He took the matter to the rent tribunal and got the rent reduced with retrospective effect. This old couple then found themselves in the position of having to pay back two years' compensation to the tenant in respect of the excessive rent which had been paid over that period.
I am bringing forward these points to show that there are matters which are considerably complicated. I can assure the House that these particular landlords, whose cases I have mentioned, are in no way bloated capitalists or wicked Tories trying to make money out of the people. These are not cases concerning large landowners and estate owners or of any attempted victimisation whatsoever. They merely illustrate honest efforts on the part of fellow citizens who, having worked hard all their lives, saved a little money and invested that money in property, to make certain that their investment repays them in their old age.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What does the hon. Member propose should be done?

Mr. Eden: The main point which I have to make is that in the matter of rent tribunals, which I am very glad to be able to discuss from the landlord's aspect as well as from the tenant's aspect, there should be some right of appeal against the decision of these tribunals. I do not understand the procedure of courts of law, but it does not seem to me right


that decisions should be taken by these tribunals against which no one has any right of appeal.
I am not saying that the hardship is all on one side; it applies to both sides—landlord and tenant. The tribunals apparently are completely immune from having to give any reason for the decisions reached, and I feel very strongly that they should not only be required to give reasons for their decisions, but that there should also be some right of appeal against them.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Member not appreciate that in the setting up of these rent tribunals the main object was to avoid the whole legal procedure which otherwise would have made them an entirely different type of body, and one which in fact tenants would not have been able to use effectively? If we developed some form of appeal procedure it would inevitably bring up legal complications which we wanted to avoid.

Mr. Eden: As I have said, I do not know very much about legal procedure, but I feel that if any decision is to be made in any form by a tribunal which is binding on the parties concerned, they should have the right of reply and some right of appeal. It may not be necessary to enter into the whole technical legal aspect of a court of appeal. Perhaps some method might be evolved to achieve that end.
The whole of the law relating to rent restriction and rent control is extremely complicated. I hope that I have given examples which indicate that there are, in many instances, landlords who are in a very grievous and serious financial position, and they have every bit as much right to justice as the tenant. I should like to see some overall review of all the legislation which now exists on rent control. I think that that would go quite a long way to remove some of the difficulties and anomalies which still exist.
I have two other points which I wish to make briefly. One concerns housing. In my constituency there are a large number of elderly people. They have difficulties which are peculiar to them. One difficulty is that of suitable accommoda-

tion for elderly people—for those who cannot climb stairs easily, those who are single or who can cope with only a very small type of accommodation.
I am glad that a start has been made to try to persuade local authorities to make suitable provision for these people in their building programmes. I would appeal to the Minister of Health, whom I am glad to see here, to provide some system whereby elderly people who are not sick and ill can be given care and attention and not become a burden on the already very limited hospital accommodation. There might be, under the jurisdiction of the local authority, some kind of comprehensive roving nursing system made available to elderly couples or elderly single people in their homes.
A qualified nursing service could be used for regular visits, and to provide for the needs of these people. That would go a long way, not only towards helping the people themselves, but towards relieving the congestion and burden on nursing staff, and would give them a better opportunity of helping those who are really sick and ill. That is a scheme which I know would be well received in a constituency such as mine.
Finally, I want to make a short reference to education. I was glad to see in the Gracious Speech that we are to continue expansion in the building and improvement of schools and that
My Government will give close attention to the number and needs of the teaching profession.
I have never been a teacher, any more than I have been a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of my time in the teaching world. I know how exhausted teachers become at the end of a morning's teaching. Therefore, I would favour any project or scheme which could be put forward to relieve the teachers of the necessity of having to undergo what I would call kitchen fatigue immediately after a morning's teaching.
In other words, some kind of independent school catering service might be a useful addition to the facilities which are now offered to the schools. It is a very exhausting business to try to keep control of a large number of children when they are feeding, and particularly so when this comes at a time when the teachers themselves should be having a break after their morning's effort.
I hope that the points which I have raised are not violently controversial. They are not particularly novel. Nevertheless, the need for action on them is very great. I hope that consideration will be given to some of these matters in the light of the very comprehensive programme which the Gracious Speech offers to us.

5.50 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I ask for the indulgence of hon. Members in my first speech in the House, although the subject on which I want to say a few words, housing, is usually very controversial.
I am deeply concerned, as I think most of us are, particularly if we have served on local authorities, about slum clearance. I noted the reference in the Gracious Speech to slum clearance and I urge the Government, when they introduce their legislation, to bear in mind the real problems of local authorities who are engaged in slum clearance work. The Prime Minister said last Thursday that local authorities are preparing slum clearance programmes to be submitted to the Ministry, but unless something is done by the Ministry to ease the problems of local authorities, particularly financial, such plans will remain but a dream.
The subsidy arrangements under the 1954 Act dealing with deferred demolition are the worst that have ever been made by a Ministry with a local authority. Since 1919, the theoretical basis of subsidy between Government and local authority has been a relationship of three to one. Before the war it was never lower than two to one. Under the 1954 Act, the basis is that the Government are prepared to pay only 50 per cent. of the interest on the loans on the purchase price of houses under deferred demolition, and the local authority has to meet the other 50 per cent. While it is true that the Exchequer is prepared to pay £3 per house per annum, it will do so for only 15 years, whereas the loan period is 60 years. During this time the local authority have to continue to make payments. If we are serious in tackling slum clearance there must be more generous provision to local authority finance.
It follows logically that the local authorities who have the biggest slum clearance problem are those who have the biggest housing responsibilities and the

biggest financial commitments on housing. Where there is a need for slum clearance there is invariably a surplus of population to be housed. Again, the authorities concerned with slum clearance are those who have little or no vacant land on which to house the surplus population cleared by slum clearance.
There is a reference in the Gracious Speech to an inquiry into tribunals, including land, which could offer scope to local authorities. I am afraid that it will not offer much scope unless arrangements are made for some form of appeal by local authorities to an independent authority when the Minister has refused to sanction a compulsory purchase order. When a compulsory purchase order is made, and if the Ministry orders that it should not be proceeded with, there is no appeal by the local authority. There is no means of finding out why that C.P.O. has been turned down. It should be possible, as the result of the proposed inquiry, to cover both those points; it is necessary to give the local authority concerned with housing an opportunity of acquiring land, either compulsorily or otherwise. The land problem is the very root of housing and slum clearance.
One other point I wish to raise is of very great importance to my constituency, Wood Green. We have a large shopping area. We had recently an application made to us by the owner of one of these large shops to extend the premises at the rear. This extension would involve the demolition of five houses. The local authority considered the matter, and, remembering the Minister's circular dealing with housing accommodation, it decided that it could not allow that application because of the acute housing need in the borough.
Although Wood Green is only a small borough it has a waiting list of 1,545, 60 per cent. of which are urgent cases. In addition, we have to release 210 requisitioned units, we have 166 prefabricated houses which are on public open space and which have to be removed, and alternative accommodation found for the families in them. When the present building programme is finished there will be only 100 dwellings still to be erected in the borough of Wood Green, which means that, apart from redevelopment, there is no possibility of any further accommodation being available.
In these circumstances, the local authority decided that it could not grant this application for the demolition of the five houses. The case went before the local planning committee of the county council, and it granted planning permission. Subsequently, the local authority appealed to the Minister. The Minister's decision has now been received. The Minister has ruled—and here I quote—that
Demolition does not constitute development.…Where no dwelling exists the question of a change of its use cannot arise.
Therefore, there is no need for the shop concerned to make application to demolish these five houses. These five houses are vacant today. Families have been moved out. There is nothing whatever, on the Minister's ruling, to stop five perfectly sound houses being demolished, yet we are spending public money on "Operation Rescue" to bolster up semi-derelict property.
That is not the end of the story. We have already heard of another shop the owners of which are proposing to do the same thing. Word of the Minister's ruling has evidently got round to them because they have not applied for planning permission. We heard of their intention only because one of the houses which they proposed to demolish is requisitioned property and they have applied for it to be released. We also heard about it from the tenants of one of the other houses who told us, in great distress, that they had been told to find alternative accommodation as it was proposed to demolish their house to make way for shop extension.
In this small area there are 50 houses that could be demolished in this way without reference to the local authority or to anyone else at all. What is true of my constituency must be true of others elsewhere, and once this ruling becomes known it will be quite simple for anyone wanting to change the use of premises merely to demolish them, instead of applying for planning permission, which may be refused. They can then do anything they like subject, of course, to whatever local and other provisions there may be.
I appeal most earnestly to the Minister to reconsider this decision before it comes to the point where we have the wholesale demolition of sound houses at a time when the country's housing need is so acute that we are bending every effort to

try to preserve every possible house. I appeal particularly on behalf of my own constituency, while bearing in mind that this is a problem which affects the whole country.

6.0 p.m.

Miss Edith Pitt: I think myself very fortunate in having been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, immediately following the maiden speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) in that it gives me the opportunity, on behalf of all Members of the House, to offer her our warm congratulations. My own maiden speech is not very far behind me. I still vividly remember the agony I went through then, so I imagine that the hon. Lady now feels probably the most relieved Member on the benches opposite; and rightly so.
Her speech was a model of sincerity, of clarity and of knowledge. I cannot say to her, as has been the case with previous maiden speeches from the benches opposite, that she spoke without notes. I observed that she had some in her hand but probably, as with most of us, that was for moral support. But I did notice that she did not consult her notes. I hope the House will acquit me of any especial feminine interest when I say again to the hon. Lady how glad I am to have the privilege of congratulating another woman Member on her speech.
I wish now to refer to three or four points mentioned in the Gracious Speech. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said that in that Speech she found no reference to matters within the province of the Minister of Health. I find reference to at least four matters which, although they may not necessarily be the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, most certainly have a bearing on the job he does; and if the proposals in the Queen's Speech produce the effect we all wish they may even diminish his job and he will probably be very glad of that.
The proposals are those for health and safety in agriculture and forestry; the road programme which, amongst other things, aims at reducing danger on the roads; the proposal for the rapid clearance of slums; and the proposal for the reduction of air pollution by smoke and other causes. I single out these because they have a common factor. They are all


preventive. They are all aimed at preventing any reduction in health and at taking the fullest advantage of the progress we have already achieved in our health services.
They have the virtue of proposing something which will eventually save money, and though I do not put that as a first priority it is not without importance. They will add to our production, which is certainly vital to our prosperity, by keeping the people healthy. Most important of all, if these proposals are carried through, and succeed in preventing illness or accident and loss of work, they can add immeasurably to the total happiness of our people, and that certainly is a first priority.
With regard to this preventive work, I should like first to mention something to which the Minister of Health himself has referred in a statement over the weekend—preventive dental work, or conservative treatment as the experts call it, although that has no political flavour. This week-end my right hon. Friend launched a drive for better dental health, and I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to support him. Since the introduction of charges for dental service—and again, that is the responsibility of both sides of the House, because a Socialist Government introduced charges for dentures and the Conservative Government introduced the charges for dental treatment—we have seen a change in the pattern of dental work.
It has been a change for the better. We now have more dentists available to help in the work of the school dental clinics—a priority service and, essentially, preventive work. We also have more dentists available, some full-time, some giving sessional service, for the maternity and child welfare services. I do not say that that service is perfect now, but it is very much improved.
In the school dental service, the number of dentists dropped after the introduction of the National Health Service Act, 1946, to a total of only 800, but we have made such progress since that there are now more than 1,100. We also have more in the maternity and child welfare service, and the figures of treatments provided again emphasise the preventive aspect of the work being done.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I wonder whether the hon. Lady

is aware that one reason the number of dentists in the school dental service fell was that the dentists preferred to go into private enterprise and get the rake-off as a result of the introduction of the National Health Service? Another reason was the lack of agreement on a scale of salaries for dentists in the school dental service. The rise in the figures is due to circumstances, and not to any action of the Tory Party.

Miss Pitt: I am certainly well aware that we failed to recruit for the school and maternity and child welfare services because a Socialist Minister of Health made it so attractive for them to earn their money in private practice. The salaries are not too attractive but they have been increased, and the imposition of dental charges, which has given the private dentist less work to do, and improved salary scales have brought about an improvement in the school dental service. I think we would all agree that is a very good thing.
I was about to say that the figures of work done also underline this preventive aspect. Whereas, in 1951 approximately 2½ million dentures were supplied, that figure had fallen in 1954 to 1½ million, but, while in 1951 the number of preservative work courses—preventive work again—was 4½ million, that figure had increased in 1954 to nearly 6 million. The emphasis, again, is right—saving teeth instead of having to supply dentures. I do not suggest that we have the whole answer, but I do think that that is a step in the right direction.
For the consideration of my right hon. Friend, I suggest that attempts should be made to encourage integration of the dentists in private practice with the local authority service, not for actual dental service but for dental education. If I might give an example of what I mean, in my own local authority, in Birmingham, we had some doubts whether, when the appointed day arrived, our maternity and child welfare services would suffer; whether the long years of educating mothers and expectant mothers to go for help to the city welfare clinics might not, to some extent, be negatived —that mothers might go to the general practitioner for their ante-natal care.
Experience confirmed some of our fears numbers tended to fall—but I am


happy to say that the reverse has now happened. The local authority maternity and child welfare services are now playing their full and proper part in the antenatal and post-natal care of women. But a large part of the credit for that result lies in the fact that the general practitioners and the local authority servants of their own free will got together and established a liaison. The general practitioners hold clinics in their own surgeries for expectant mothers, and the midwives and the health visitors assist at those clinics in the doctors' surgeries, so that we have the two aspects of the service integrating.
I should like the Minister to encourage something on the same lines in dentistry. Could not the dentists undertake a certain amount of health education, with the assistance of health visitors or other local authority servants who are able to help in practical work? I am sure that the dentists would be willing. I know that their numbers are limited, but I am sure that this emphasis on health education, and particularly on sound teeth, deserves consideration.
There is one other point I should like to mention on the question of teeth. I liked the Minister's comment in his latest leaflet:
Sound teeth make good health.
I hope that he will have that phrase displayed everywhere, making a real propaganda point of it, so that all families will remember the necessity for preserving good teeth.
The second type of preventive work to which I would like to refer is in tuberculosis. That is a matter in which I have a special interest. Tuberculosis notifications are still high in this country. In my own area it was slightly higher last year than the year before, and I think it was probably the same throughout the country, although the figures are not available. That does not mean that there is more tuberculosis throughout the country; it means that we are diagnosing the cases and treating them early. I am very happy to say that the death rate is still falling.
The main source of contracting tuberculosis is through contact with infection. Here, again, I wish to stress the preventive aspect of the matter, because if we have more treatment facilities, and

especially more surgical facilities, we shall clear up the existing burden of active tuberculosis and remove the risk of infection, thus getting nearer to the day, which we all believe is within sight, of eradicating tuberculosis entirely.
There are still too many patients on waiting lists who need treatment in sanatoria or tuberculosis hospitals. That is certainly so in my own area. Yet I hear of other parts of the country where, because of the reduction of cases, there are now beds available in tuberculosis hospitals. I suggest that this is a matter for integration between regions, in order that the beds available in one part of the country may be put at the service of another area thus enabling treatment to be given to anyone suffering from tuberculosis and preventing the disease from being passed on to others.
The B.C.G. vaccine which is being used in combating tuberculosis is purely preventive. It is my experience—and I imagine it is shared by other hon. Members—that parents are most co-operative in this preventive work and where facilities are made available they welcome the chance of having their children vaccinated. I think the housing progress that we are making plays a large part in the prevention of tuberculosis because good housing conditions are fundamental in this respect.
On the subject of propaganda, I feel that there is still need to impress upon members of the public the fact that we are making this great progress in the treatment and eradication of tuberculosis, and that they need not hesitate to come forward if there is any danger of tuberculosis in their families. There is still some of the old taboo. People will not speak of tuberculosis. They are afraid of it. If we could make it more widely known that the prospects of arresting tuberculosis, provided the treatment is given early, and enabling people to lead normal lives are so very much greater these days, we should be doing a real job of preventive work.
The other point that I wish to mention in connection with preventive work is diphtheria immunisation. Mention of this subject may seem a little strange, because we hear so little about diphtheria today. I notice from the figures that although the deaths last year from this former killing disease were only nine—a


tremendous improvement on recent years—the immunisation figures are falling, and I think that there is perhaps a danger of the public becoming complacent about the disease because we seem to have it under control. In 1954, of the children to whom this most important immunisation should be given—children up to the age of one—only 36 per cent. were immunised out of what everybody in the health world always hopes will be a 75 per cent. target. There is room for propaganda here to remind parents of the danger from diphtheria, not just of its killing potentialities but the dangers of the after effects even if a child survives. We must encourage parents to have their children immunised, particularly in the first year. It saves not only life, but hospital beds and the expenditure of public money.
I wish to refer to the use of factory first-aid centres, or medical centres as we sometimes call them because they are so well-equipped. I feel that they also have their part to play in preventive medicine. They should not exist merely for dressings of the casual injury or for giving the odd "cocktail," as the sister in the factory where I worked called them, to those who fear that they are developing a cold. Factory surgeries employ trained doctors and qualified nurses, and I should like the best use to be made of these highly trained people by encouraging them to play a more active part in health and safety education, and possibly research into the effects of repetitive work such as monotony and lack of interest.
We spend £463 million on the Health Service in this country. I believe we are getting good value from that expenditure, but we could obtain even better value if we concentrated more on preventive work. One of the lessons which the Election taught us was that people are looking forward; they are not concerned with the years gone by. They believe that the future can be better, and surely preventive work in the Health Service is a very important part of that future.
I should like to see much more emphasis on the use of the family doctor. The position has improved since the 1953 salary award, but doctors still have too little time to enable them to be real family doctors and pay full attention to every member of the family. And we still have not enough health visitors. The

health visitor today is the handmaiden to the doctor because she accepts responsibility for the whole of the family and not just for ante-natal or post-natal care as used to be the case. There should also be more home nurses.
I believe that there are working parties sitting at present to consider the question of health visitors and home nurses. I hope that we shall have their report soon, and that health visitors and home nurses will be used increasingly in the field of preventive medicine. Finally, I hope that all in the Health Service who are engaged in preventing ill-health and unhappiness will bring to their labours a spirit of good will in order that the public may benefit.

6.20 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: The debate has ranged over a very wide field. In a way, I rather regret that, because it is tempting. I had not proposed to say anything at all, or at least very little, about the Health Service, and, consequently, I must refrain from the temptation of following the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt). I could agree with much of what she said, as, I think, could most people.
What has been troubling me for a long time was mentioned in one sentence which she used—her reference to integration. We seem to have reached the stage where we separate health from welfare, and, in my view, that is a big mistake. Health is an aspect of welfare and it will be very difficult indeed for us to continue without making art attempt to integrate what is broadly described as welfare with the Health Service.
That lack of integration is particularly marked in the welfare of the aged. The aged come under the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for pensions. They are the responsibility of the local authority for welfare—that is, care and attention. They are the responsibility of the Health Service proper when they are ill. It would be as well if we examined how that works.
There has been a great deal of talk about the problem of the ageing population. We are told that the time will come when there will be so many old people that it will constitute a problem for those who are producing to keep those who are not producing, but what is


forgotten is that in the process of ageing the population are retaining a degree of activity beyond the years for which it has been customary to regard them as being active. That is one of the reasons for which I think it is perhaps so wrong to discourage aged people from working. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Support for that statement comes from those who are potentially aged.
There are two aspects to this matter. First, there is the therapeutic value in activity. We are all geared up to a degree of activity, and if we suddenly cease we suffer the consequences, because it is difficult to restart the machine. I remember that some years ago I was broadcasting in Birmingham on the Midland Region with a team dealing with the welfare of the aged and I said that I thought there was great therapeutic value in activity. A doctor, who was a member of the team, said, "That is quite true. I have many patients who are professional people—bankers, solicitors and lawyers—and when they retire, and sit back, they wilt and die." I said, "That is not relief of activity. That is their consciences."
The question has two aspects. The first is the welfare of the individual and the second is the economic value of what he can produce. It must not be thought that, arbitrarily, at the age of 65, a man is no longer of any value. It is quite true that from 65 onwards he will show a degree of reduced capacity. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh too soon, for that reduced capacity is often compensated for by increased intellectual capacity. For us to lay down that a man shall be penalised by having to stop work at 65 is to do him a disservice as well as the community. He should be allowed to earn very much more than he is allowed to earn at the moment and to remain in industry. At present, it is not worth his while to do so.
Everybody who has had anything to do with the welfare of the aged knows quite well that occupational therapy is a very real thing indeed. By virtue of the continued exercise we give a person two things: we give him continued strength because of the exercise entailed in the occupation and, more than that, we give him an interest in life and the will to live.
I want to say a few words about some anomalies in our care of the aged. The separation of health from welfare came

as a result of the introduction of the National Health Service, because before that the local health authority—the county council or the county borough council—was responsible for both aspects. The result of the previous arrangements was that we did not have the difficulties which we have today in the case of an old person who is not suffering from a disease—a person who cannot be said to be a patient in the sense that he is suffering from a complaint which needs medical attention.
The local authority should be the authority which can see to such a person, but the local authority says, "We cannot do so. He is in such a condition that he ought to be dealt with by the hospital authority." The hospital board says, "No. He has not arrived at the stage when he needs a hospital bed." As a consequence, the old person falls between two stools.
Experiments have been conducted to deal with this problem. I can mention one where the Nuffield Trust offered its assistance. There is a hospital in the western part of London, at Isleworth, known as the West Middlesex Hospital. Some years ago the deputy medical superintendent, Dr. Marjory Warren, started one of the first geriatric units in this country, and a remarkable thing happened. As a result of mobilising the resources which were available, 40 of the patients in that unit who normally would have been bed-bound for the rest of their lives, chronic sick until they died, were able to be discharged.
The unit had used electrotherapy, hydrotherapy and physiotherapy. It had used everything possible to bring some measure of strength back into wasted limbs. The hospital could discharge the patients. But there was no home to which they could be discharged. The Nuffield Trust came to the assistance of the regional board and Middlesex County Council took part. The regional board, the county council and the Trust between them set up a home.
Here is the anomaly to which I want to draw attention. When fresh legislation is being introduced I hope that the Minister responsible will turn up this part of my speech and see whether something can be done to deal with the question. In that home there is the case of the old person who should be the responsibility


of the local health authority. In the next bed there is the patient who should be the responsibility of the regional hospital board. The patient from the regional hospital board pays nothing whatever, but the patient coming under National Assistance has to pay. That is an anomaly which made it very difficult to run the place, but at last that difficulty was overcome.
We do not deal with old people and get them out of their difficulties by putting them into an institution. When the patients are well enough they have to go somewhere, but, unfortunately, there are not enough of the right type of institution for them to go into. There are large institutions, which are unsuitable. Old people should have brought within their reach the maximum degree of normality of life within the limits of their capacity. That means that housing authorities should turn their attention to providing the right type of bungalow or flat for old people. Then we would be able to see how far a local authority home help service or a local authority district nursing service can meet the needs of those old people in circumstances which are not institutional for, with all the good will in the world, a patient in a hospital or an inmate of an institute may soon lose individuality if he is with a mass of people for a long time.
It is, therefore, desirable that old people should be allowed to enjoy what remains of their life living that life by the expression of their personality as individuals and not as one of a number. The time comes when no longer can they depend upon just what is provided in their own home. Then, if they have to go to a place where they require constant care and attention, it should be a small place where life can be intimate.
I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking against a very much bigger interest which is agitating the minds of hon. Members at present. I know that they are not waiting on my next word but on the word of one much greater than I, but there is one other aspect of the welfare service on which I want to say a few words. It concerns the welfare of the physically handicapped. I was very greatly disappointed when I learned that the idealistic scheme of the late George Tomlinson was not to receive the encouragement it deserves. I was very sorry indeed to learn that there are to

be discharges from Remploy factories. That seems to me to be going backwards, although—I want to be fair—I must confess that I find it difficult to understand why every man in a Remploy factory, producing something, costs £7 a week in subsidy. An investigation ought to be made into that scheme, for it is difficult to realise why a man doing something in a factory costs the country £7 a week instead of being of some economic advantage to the country.
I realise that Remploy is engaged in a difficult task, a task which starts rather late in life, and I want to make a plea here. Is the Minister of Education satisfied with the number of special schools for the physically handicapped? That is important. If, during those formative years when he is getting an ordinary education, we train a child for a job we prepare him for the greater training which is required later. Such a child is entitled to have a degree of independence. It is true that a large number of physically handicapped people, strange as it may seem, are cleverer workmen because of their handicap. They are cleverer because of their concentration and the necessity for them to keep their end up. I suggest that some attention should be given to this particular phase of the physically handicapped—the training of the child.
There is another important aspect. If a physically handicapped child gets that training and then there is no opportunity for him to find a place in industry the consequent disappointment is probably greater than if he had not received that training. That is where the sheltered workshops are needed. Take an illustration: years ago one class was singled out for attention. It was a pathetic class—a class which got the interest of everyone—the blind. Special Acts of Parliament were passed and the blind were taken out of the Poor Law. In 1938, the blind and their relatives were given old-age pensions at the age of 60. County councils could make domiciliary grants and allowances. The blind were given sheltered workshops.
What do we see today? We see that in the blind community there are people who are independent because of the attention which was focussed on them. I would not say that they deserve any less than they have got, but I say that blindness is one handicap out of many. All those who are handicapped, whether physically


or mentally, are the responsibility of the community. I hope that when this Parliament is ended all of us, on both sides, will be able to look back on joint efforts we have made—because this is a subject we can lift out of party politics, a subject which rises superior to our petty party beliefs, a subject which affects each of us who believes that we are our brothers' keepers.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FOOTPLATE WORKERS' STRIKE (CONCLUSION)

6.38 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I am glad to be able to tell the House that an agreement has now been reached as a basis for the subsequent settlement of matters in dispute on the railways and that the strike is being called off forthwith. Copies of the agreement will be available to members at the earliest possible moment in the Vote Office.
It is not necessary for me to enter into the details except to say that the agreement does require me to appoint a referee for a limited purpose and that I have appointed Lord Justice Morris, who has made himself available immediately.
I am sure that the House will share my feeling of satisfaction and relief that this serious and costly strike has now been ended.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am sure that we have heard the statement made by the Minister of Labour with the very greatest satisfaction and that we would all like to pay a tribute to his efforts, to the efforts of the Trades Union Congress, and to all who have been trying to get this dispute settled.
We were to have a debate on this whole matter. I do not know when it would be considered desirable to have a debate, but I imagine that the Minister has had a very hard time and would wish for an interval before we discuss the stoppage. Perhaps the question of a debate might be discussed through the usual channels and a day taken for a debate next week.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden) indicated assent.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those of us who know something of the background of Lord Justice Morris congratulate the Minister on getting him to undertake this onerous task? We are quite certain that he will do it in an exemplary manner.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I be allowed also to add my congratulations to the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his tact, wisdom and patience? What he has just told us has brought to our minds only one thought:
For this relief much thanks.
We congratulate and thank the Minister.

Mr. Walter Monslow: We all rejoice that this unfortunate strike has been brought to an end and I should like to pay tribute to the members of the T.U.C., who have certainly worked assiduously for the desired result. I, too, would like to pay a tribute to the Minister. He certainly has done great work, and on behalf of my fraternity I should like to express our very best thanks. The conduct of the footplatemen in this struggle has been exemplary, and I should like to say to all concerned that we want the result of what has been done to lead to an expeditious settlement.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This is indeed calm after the storm. The House now has the opportunity to return to a calmer atmosphere. To my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, who has, I know, had such a very difficult task in recent days, the House is very grateful.
I am glad to see that some of the "aged" have now remained in the House notwithstanding the quips of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who last spoke before this very happy settlement was announced. It is a great pleasure to follow an announcement of this kind, because, strangely enough, the subject that I want to develop this evening follows the run of the earlier debate.
I have been here since the start of the debate this afternoon and, with other hon. Members, have heard some interesting maiden speeches. In the course of those speeches the theme which has been running through the debate has been the


liberties of our people. It has been a curious feature of the afternoon's debate that while there have been some practical suggestions for improving the machinery of the social services, in the main the speakers have stressed certain personal ideas of their own.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon), for example, coined a new and horrible word. He talked about "depersonalization." It was something which, I thought, must have come through the colleagues of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), because only the Inland Revenue could think of an expression of that kind.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: They invented it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sure they did.
Nevertheless, when the hon. Member for Bootle said that he feared there was not a true recognition of the dominant force of politics today, he was expressing the Liberal upsurge of feeling which I found very much in evidence during the Election and one which some Liberal Members may have noticed. It was certainly noticed by the candidate who fought Hereford very effectively against my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and by many others. What I want to say, therefore, is that the most powerful of the social services is the liberty of the individual himself to be able, within the realm of the laws, to find the proper expression of his views and the protection of his rights.
The Gracious Speech mentions the extension as a practical measure of legal aid to the county courts, which I welcome. But it also mentions the necessity for an inquiry into the tribunals, administrative or otherwise, which run the administrative system of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) developed some of the dangers which we find today in the tribunals and he referred in particular to the injustices which one finds with the rent tribunals, themselves quite efficiently set up in their general structure, but tribunals in which there is no right of appeal and no power to control the persons who appear before them.
I should like to give a few illustrations from my own experience of the sort of human injustices which we encounter for

people who come, at any sphere, into conflict with the administrative system. We know that great concentrations of power as found in our present administrative system inevitably lead sometimes to tyranny. We know that human beings are fallible and that, therefore, the institutions which they set up are fallible. We believe, therefore, that a review of this system is now required. Those of us who have any experience of the system know that there are certain rules of natural justice which must prevail if that system is to be made effective.
I say that there is no reason why our administrative system should not be as fair and just as the judicial system and that a review must take place to ensure that, consistent with upholding the needs of efficiency and of consistency, none the less we can found a system which will ensure that it is just as fair and just in decision as between the State and the citizen as when somebody goes to a court of law.
Let me give a few shocking examples. First, there is the case which was dealt with before the St. Pancras Rent Tribunal some years ago, when an Irishman who was a tenant asked for the reduction of his rent. In the course of the proceedings, he got into a violent altercation with the chairman and he told him that the rent was grossly excessive. He then proceeded to say that he thought that the rent b— well ought to be reduced. The chairman then attacked the man, and the result was that the litigant went out of the court to fetch a constable to arrest the chairman for slander. That was an occasion when I was present, and is one example. The moral is that there is no power to arrest for contempt and no control by the chairman over the litigants who attend.
The chairman had asked for certain papers and the tenant had refused to produce them, whereupon he went outside to get the policeman and the case was dismissed. When he came back and discovered that the case was dismissed, he found that he had no right of appeal at all because, having shown such shocking bad manners, the chairman had dismissed the case.
Let us take another example, that of the taxi drivers, for instance, when they "get across" the police. When the taxi driver, as in Parker's case, "gets across" the police, he is told that he is not a fit


person to drive. His licence is revoked. He is not entitled to know the reason for the revocation. He is not entitled to know why he is considered a man of bad character. The tittle-tattle which the police may have obtained somewhere may be quite wrong. Nevertheless, the taxi driver has no right of appeal and is not entitled to know the reasons why his livelihood is taken away from him.
Let me take another matter of which I have wide knowledge: town planning. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), in her maiden speech, mentioned compulsory purchase orders. Do the public know, for example, that they can never know the facts or the reasons upon which a decision is founded? Do they know that the inspectors' reports are always secret? Do they know that at the end of a hearing other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when they are affected, make representations to that Ministry behind the backs of the objectors?
All this is regarded as quite proper in the Civil Service. And it is proper, in the sense that it is not the fault of the Civil Service. The newspapers would have us think this is all the civil servants' fault. It is not. It is our fault. This is where the fault lies—make no mistake about it—on the Floor of this House, because in the past fifteen years nobody among Ministers or the House itself has got down to the hard thinking which is necessary to meet the problems of this new age.
During the past two years, however, some hon. Friends of mine and I have deliberated together and have produced a little book. I am sorry, in a sense, that it should have been published by the Conservative Central Office. I should have liked it to have been published by an organisation less party political, but none the less I commend this little book to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and also to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that they will read this document, "The Rule of Law." We who considered this matter for a very long time are all of us actively concerned not only as politicians but as lawyers, some of us lawyers whose practice enables us to see this problem at first hand. We have put before the House a

blueprint of the way in which, I believe, we can master this important problem and ensure a system of administrative law that can stand fairly shoulder to shoulder with the legal system.
What are the obligations which are required to ensure that natural justice prevails in an administrative decision—any decision, a housing decision, a pension decision, any administrative decision, even if it be a quasi-judicial decision? First, there must be the obligation to hear both sides of the case; not one side, but both. Secondly, there must be the obligation to avoid any bias on either side. Thirdly, there must be the obligation to take reasonable steps to ascertain the true facts accurately and to exclude extraneous material, material which is not part of the scope of the inquiry and which may come in before or afterwards. The fourth and most important obligation of all is to state clear and cogent reasons for the decision when they are asked for.
What machinery is needed to preserve and uphold these four basic principles of natural justice? The first piece of machinery is a suitable tribunal to review disputes. Let me pause for a moment on that. We are far behind America; we are far behind France. In America, there is the Administrative Code of Procedure Act, 1946, which gives every citizen in the land the opportunity of a fair hearing and to be given the reasons for a decision when he comes into conflict with the Executive. In France, there is the Conseil d'Etat, a most efficient although an administrative court.
After the most careful review of these systems in France and in America we as a body of lawyers and Members of this House came to the conclusion that our essentially British concept was not susceptible to imitating that of America or France. We must have something to suit us. There are many arguments to and fro, but for the sake of brevity I shall pass them over now.
I recommend to the House this: that we should have an administrative division of the High Court of Justice, with a separate court presided over by a High Court judge to sit with assessors who will be administrators of life-long experience. Thus, we should have a marriage between the civil servants, who will trust the administrators drawn from their own ranks, and the benefit of the wisdom of


a specially chosen High Court judge of experience. That court will have the power to review all disputes, to know whether a hearing was free and fair, whether both sides of the case were properly heard without bias, to check the accuracy of the facts—I stress the word "facts"—and their relevancy, and to investigate the reasons by which the authorities arrived at their decision.
Although it will have the power to review the facts, and although it will have the obligation to review the reasons for the decision, it will set up its own proper machinery for such review and will avoid interference with questions of policy and of discretion. This may be considered an important matter, because it is for this House to ensure that there is adequate and proper control over Ministers. Ministerial control would not be violated by the administrative division of the High Court. The facts and the reasons would be reviewed but the Ministerial control would remain, and questions of policy, of course, would remain for Ministers alone.
Further, what is vital is to establish, by machinery, the right of the citizen to know, if he desires, by a written statement, the facts and reasons upon which the administrative decision is based so that such decision may be reviewed if it is considered to be wrong. The third piece of machinery is to ensure review of the staffing and the procedure of existing administrative tribunals. With regard to the staffing, I hold the view that the staffing of these administrative tribunals should come under the direct purview of the Lord Chancellor's department, a department renowned throughout the world for its integrity, its impartiality and its ability.
There will be strong feeling in the Civil Service against this recommendation, and if there is such strong feeling I shall say, "All right, let us give way to it," but let us make sure that the inspectorate in each case, of each Ministry, is not directly under the control of the Minister but is hived off into a separate department and certainly in its own separate buildings, where it can be entirely separate.
Moreover, let us give the inspectorate the right to a higher status than it has at the present time. Let us do that if we place greater responsibility upon it. The inspectors are, in the main, a fine body

of men, but at present few of us have the opportunity to judge for ourselves how fine, because the facts, the decisions, the reasons for their decisions are never given to the public, nor even to the objectors.
I turn from the staff to the procedure. The procedure in the tribunals under review must first give a right for oral hearing of both sides in the case. There must be full power of interrogation and the right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine witnesses, the power to call for documents or witnesses necessary to arrive at a decision and to ensure that that evidence is heard before the tribunal, and not before or after its sitting. There must be full right of representation. Some times, people can represent themselves in these cases fairly well. At other times they cannot. The representation may be by a surveyor or a lawyer, though not necessarily by a lawyer; but there must be the right of representation by a properly qualified person, if it is so desired.
Perhaps more important than all, there must be full publicity with reporting. That does not mean only reporting by the Press at the time of the case, but means the building up of a code of administrative decisions, upon which will rest the authority of administrators in the future, a code analogous to the code of law that we have in the decisions of the courts of law. I believe that if we can proceed along the lines which I have suggested with a sense of urgency, we may make a great contribution in these next few years for the benefit of a great social service, a social service which is one of the defences of the person's individual rights. I hope that in the coming year all of us in the House will try to urge the Government to get on as fast as possible with this job.
Sir Frank Soskice, the former right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend, who is at present in Athens or on his way there, was just one of those on the opposite side of the House who had a very keen appreciation and understanding of some of the problems which I have stated tonight. We on this side of the House have an abundance of experience in this sphere. The Government need no great inquiry. They can draw upon the experience of the House in this matter and I hope that they will do so. If they draw


upon our experience I hope that we shall not be found to be wanting.
I believe that if these principles of natural justice are enshrined in our future, and the system of administration is reviewed, a sound system of administration will arise which can stand shoulder to shoulder with accepted standards of British justice and that then the present deadlock between law and arbitrary power will perish and there will arise, instead a partnership in happy wedlock.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am sorry that the House was not full during the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I may not have agreed with certain small sections of it but its spirit demonstrated the work of the House of Commons at its best in preserving the rights of the individual.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for introducing that high tone into the debate. I say that as one who is probably diametrically opposed to him politically. But here we both stand for the application of the basic principles of natural justice to the individual. This is one of the things which has worried those of us on both sides of the House who have been trying to do our job to the best of our ability. The ordinary man in the street who has struggled in war to preserve liberty is never quite sure about the powers of the large numbers of tribunals which exist today.
We know that the most important thing in the world to one of our constituents at any particular moment is the problem which he brings to us. It may appear superficial and trivial to his Member but to the individual it is of paramount importance, and I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that we must find a new approach to this complex, fast-moving age in which we live. It must be an approach which will guarantee the basic principles of natural justice for the most humble individual in the land.
Therefore, I ask the Government to consider this problem during the coming months. It may be that at some future date I shall be in a different mood from the one which possesses me at the moment. I shall do ray utmost to see that I harass the Government and have

my guns firing from every angle, but if the Government want to do a piece of constructive work in this respect I am sure that the House will agree with me that we should be grateful for the suggestions which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has put forward.
I am going to be brief and set an example to some who have spoken in today's debate. I very much regretted the manner in which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) jumped up this afternoon to try to imply that some of us on this side of the House deprecated the fact that the Gracious Speech stated that there was to be legislation
… to safeguard the health and provide for the safety and welfare of those employed in agriculture and forestry.
We are as delighted about that as anybody on the other side of the House. All that we say is that we have had categorical promises from the Government.
On Tuesday, 26th April, in Standing Committee B, I withdrew my Non-Industrial Employment Bill when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department used these words:
If it should be decided to deal with the matter by way of three Bills, complicated questions of timing would necessarily arise, which I could not possibly pretend to answer now. Upon the main question whether the Government are willing to give a pledge that it is their intention to introduce a Bill to deal with the matters mentioned in the Gowers Report as soon as possible, I can certainly say that that is the intention of the Government, and I am most willing to give that pledge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, Tuesday. 26th April, 1955; c. 32–33.]
That is not a light matter. It deals not only with three categories of employment, as the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said today, but with the whole gamut of non-industrial employment, from grave-diggers to dental mechanics. If some attention is not paid to these categories in the next two or three years, hon. and right hon. Members opposite, instead of siting in comfort as Lord Woolton recently assured them they would be, will be hurled from the benches opposite by the party on this side of the House.
I believe that some promise should be made, not only to this side of the House, but to the British people, that after the ten years of work and discussion which has already taken place, this legislation will be introduced, because the health


and safety and welfare of the individual are of paramount importance. It is unnecessary for me to make party political points or to deliver a long speech on the subject. We on this side of the House appeal to the Government to keep the pledge which was made in the last Parliament and to try to implement as soon as possible that magnificent job of work which is known as the Gowers Report.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will forgive me if I follow him only in brevity. But if he listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, he will have gathered that by next Session the Gowers Report will be fully implemented.
I should like to add my appeal to those which have come from the benches opposite on the subject of the widows' and dependants' benefits. That, quite rightly, is being considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but it should be urged to hasten its work. It is high time that this thorny and difficult problem should be dealt with.
While on the general subject of National Insurance, I should like to mention one point which has not been raised so far—the earnings limit. All of us have encountered this problem, particularly recently at Election meetings. Of course, the earnings limit must be retained in some form. The Party opposite, when they switched from old age to retirement as the basis of pension, were entirely right. All the arguments put forward by Lord Beveridge are still valid.
But the present limit seems to me to be out of accord with present needs. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) adjusted it in 1951, and she also made a particularly sensible provision for widowed mothers on that occasion when she raised the limit for them to £3. I think the general £2 limit should now be raised to accord with the increased pension and the general level of earnings and incomes. We must still retain the principle of the earnings' limit, but adjust it to meet changed circumstances.

Mr. Houghton: Has the hon. Gentleman noted the persistent opposition of the

Trades Union Congress to lifting the present earnings limit, or the views expressed by the Phillips Committee on this very difficult subject? How can he remove the fears of the trade union movement that to lift the earnings rule might be a temptation, not now but in the future, to employers to use people on pension as a form of cheap labour?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is one of my most distinguished constituents, will note that I stated that the principle of the earnings limit must be preserved; and that all the arguments that Lord Beveridge adduced were quite right. As the Trades Union Congress was persuaded to change its mind in 1951, perhaps my right hon. Friend will be as successful as the right hon. Lady was.
Hand in hand with this adjustment there should be an increase in the increments for staying on at work. Before the hon. Member interrupts me again, I will add that I am perfectly well aware that the Committee which investigated this matter said that the pension increments were not the prime reason for staying on at work. The reasons why people stay at work are many and varied, but I am sure that the increments are an important factor and should be increased, just as the pension has been increased.
I turn now to the question of health, and I note, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt), that throughout the heavy programme of legislation for the social services envisaged in the Gracious Speech, the accent seems to be on the prevention of ill health rather than on the cure. I endorse all that has been said by other hon. Members about the need for increasing the domiciliary services as the first line of defence in matters of health. We need more home helps, more home nursing, more half-way houses and, particularly better chiropody services for old people, a point which has been over-looked.
All these services should be expanded. We know why they are not. Most local councils, not unnaturally, are reluctant to expand services for which they get only a 50 per cent. grant. So we conic to another important point in the Gracious Speech—the forecast of the reform of local government. I hope that


when that is done some means will be found to bring about a closer association between local authorities and the health services, between the hospital boards and management committees and the higher tier authorities, and the lower tier authorities and the personal and domiciliary health services.
This new accent on the prevention of disease rather than cure brings me to another matter, and that is the assignment to Ministers of their duties in connection with health. When the Ministry of Health was founded in 1919 it was given the positive duty of "promoting the health of the people." Since then its powers have been whittled away so that now it is responsible only for the National Health Service, that is, for curing ill health rather than preventing it.
Many of its duties have been reshuffled on to the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, and indeed in that respect it is difficult to draw a dividing line between the duties of the two Ministries. But there are other changes which I think might be contemplated. It is true that the school meal service was handed back by the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Health. The other day an appeal was made to the children and to their parents by the two Ministers to brush their teeth after consuming lollipops rather than before. I think that was the gist of the message. Frankly, it should not have needed the machinery of the two Ministries to produce such an appeal. I think that had the Ministry of Health been responsible for the school medical services in the years after 1948 the dental service might have received rather better treatment than, in fact, it did.
Then again there is the question of food hygiene. We shall soon be considering the Regulations under the Act passed in the last Parliament. That Act was brought forward by the Ministry of Food, and the duties connected with food hygiene have now passed to the Ministry of Agriculture. Food hygiene seems to be more related to the work of the Ministry of Health than to the Ministry of Agriculture, and the transfer is long overdue.
I turn to another example, the industrial health services. We all welcome the appointment by the Minister of Labour of an advisory committee on this

matter, which I hope will in due course produce an outline of an industrial health service for this country, but I should be much happier if that advisory committee were associated with the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Labour. It is only since 1940 that the Ministry of Labour has ever been responsible for the inspection of factories. Prior to that it was a Home Office function. I believe that the time will come when the Factories Inspectorate and the industrial health service which naturally ensues from the work of that Inspectorate should be transferred to the Ministry of Health.
Finally, there is the question of education and publicity. I have given one example of steps taken, but there is much more that could be done in the way of educating our people in health and hygiene. The right Minister to act in all such matters is the Minister of Health. I hope that these plans will be coordinated in one Ministry, and that we shall really be able to take a stride forward. Let us go back to the spirit of the 1919 Act, to which I have referred, and engage in promoting the health of the people.
This is an important period in which to consider these matters. We have the Guillebaud Committee, which will report within the next few months. We have the promised reform of local government, and between these two I think we have the chance to rebuild the National Health Service on a sounder basis. I am delighted that the opportunity will fall to a Conservative Government.

7.32 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: There is one omission from the Gracious Speech that disappointed me considerably. When the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance spoke at the opening of today's debate, he said that our prosperity as a nation was bound up with the skill and industry of our people, and I think that there is a great deal of truth in that. I want to speak about 50,000 workers who gave of both their skill and their industry, but who are not having justice at the present time. I had hoped that there would be a reference to the matter in the Gracious Speech.
In the last Parliament I was fortunate to be able to present a Private Member's Bill, but I was unfortunate in another sense, because mine was not among the first names to be pulled out of the Ballot. Although I sat here for four Fridays trying to get a Second Reading for that Bill, on four successive Fridays four hon. Members opposite objected to it.
With the Act that went on the Statute Book in December, those injured workmen who were injured after 5th July, 1948, received increases in their benefits. I understand that they received those increases to meet the rise in the cost of living. These 50,000 men about whom I wish to speak received their injuries before 1948, and they have received no increase, and yet they had, even in December, a smaller income than those who were receiving their benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act.
I have quite a number of these men in my constituency, and I understand that, of the 50,000 involved, 30,000 are estimated to be miners or ex-miners, while the other 20,000 are workers from other industries. In a constituency like mine, in almost every one of the mining villages, there are men who are included in these 30,000. Each time when there has been an increase in industrial injuries benefits they have come to me and asked me why they have not benefited from the increase. They feel that they are completely forgotten by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
It is true that most of them did benefit under the original legislation of the first Labour Government. In addition to their compensation under the old compensation Act, some of them were able to get benefits from National Health Insurance. Some of them who were very severely disabled were also able to get the constant attendance allowance and other benefits that came in under these great Acts that began to function on 5th July, 1948, but so also have all the injured workers who have been injured since 1948.
They have received all of these benefits, and today we find that, if one of these 50,000 is a single man, what he receives today is 27s. 6d. a week less than a man in similar circumstances who has been injured since 1948. In the case of a married man, he receives today 17s. 6d. a week less than the married man in

similar circumstances who has been injured since 5th July, 1948. It is very difficult indeed for those who are getting their benefit under the old compensation Act to understand why there should be this great discrepancy of 27s. 6d. in the one case and 17s. 6d. in the other.
They feel, and I am convinced that they rightly feel, that if these increases given in December, as well as the previous increases, were given to meet the rise in the cost of living, they and their wives, who have to meet the same rise in the cost of living, ought to have had the same consideration. I am not alone in my fight for these people, because the Minister knows that representations have been made to him on a number of occasions by the T.U.C. I understand that not so very long ago the T.U.C. made very strong representations on behalf of these people.
The National Union of Mineworkers has also been extremely interested and active in this matter, and from time to time has also made representations. I am sorry that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is not to reply to the debate, but I hope that he will be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman who will reply that he has come to the conclusion that, although it is not included in the present Gracious Speech, before we have another Gracious Speech justice—and it is only justice—will be done to these men.
I understand that the T.U.C. has made the suggestion that the money could be found out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. We should not be creating a precedent if we use the Industrial Injuries Fund for that purpose, because the Minister knows that it has been used for other matters. The Fund is there, the desire of the T.U.C. and the N.U.M. is there, and it seems to me that it would be a very simple matter indeed for the Minister to bring in legislation. Such legislation would not be at all controversial, nor would it be legislation which should take up much of the time of the House, but it would be legislation that would give to many of these men—and the men in my own constituency of whom I am speaking are in the main old men—some hope and the feeling that they were regarded as just as important as the men who received their injuries since 1948.
I turn now to another point, and, again, it is one that affects injured workmen. I have raised this matter a number of times before. I raised it when the charges on appliances were instituted by the previous Government. I visited one of these injured workmen only last Friday. He had asked me to call because he could not come to see me. He is one of the pre-1948 injured workmen, and he is in receipt of 100 per cent. compensation under the old compensation Act, and, through the legislation passed by the Labour Government, he is also in receipt of National Health Insurance benefit.
This man had a serious accident in the pit and, because of that, he had multiple injuries. He wears a caliper on his right leg and needs a surgical belt. Two years ago he got the first surgical belt. It was after the Conservative Government had put charges on those belts and he was charged £1 for it. He tells me that he made application to the National Assistance Board on three occasions. An officer came out in a car to see him about the payment of this £1 but, in spite of all his representations, he had to pay for that surgical belt. Since then he has again been measured for a second surgical belt and, again, he has been informed that he has to pay £1 for this one. I have always thought it was one of the meanest actions of the Conservative Government to make charges for appliances needed by such severely disabled people. Their lives are sufficiently hard without making them even more difficult from the financial point of view.
I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who intervened in a previous debate when I was making this case, that I have here a letter from another miner in England who reads the reports of all these debates. He wrote saying how true was each thing I said about these appliances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will convey to her right hon. Friend the very strong feeling in the country about these miserable charges made to such severely disabled people.
Again, the 1s. charge on prescriptions falls heavily on that type of person about whom I have been speaking and it is falling heavily on our old people. It is true that if they are in receipt of National

Assistance, the shilling is returned to them. Again, however, during the election a case was brought to me of an old woman who had received her 7s. 6d. increase in pension. That 7s. 6d. caused her to lose all she was getting from the National Assistance Board. In other words she was taken outside supplementary pension and in the very first week in which she lost her supplementary pension she had to pay 2s. for two separate prescriptions. This must have been a great hardship to her. And it is not only one old woman, because this must be happening to many old people all over the country.
Now I want to put a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), who is now the Minister of Health, when he was speaking from the back benches; indeed, when he made that speech which many of us think brought him to the Front Bench. Speaking on charges, he suggested that if they were imposed and if people had to go to the National Assistance Board, it might be a good thing to have a higher level of income, not the National Assistance Board level, for those making application for repayment of prescriptions and of surgical appliances.
We have had a Conservative Government for three and a half years and the right hon. Gentleman has been Minister of Health for a great part of that time. Therefore, he has had the chance to put forward to the Cabinet those thoughts which he expressed when he was a back bencher. So far as I have been able to find out, these have not been put forward and great misery has been caused to people I know intimately in my own constituency. I do not ask that anything should be done on the National Assistance Board level; I ask that this charge on prescriptions and these charges on surgical appliances shall be taken off.
When the Minister was speaking today about the National Assistance Board and what powers he had as far as it was concerned, he was interrupted on a number of occasions. I was disappointed to find the right hon. Gentleman once again taking refuge in something that was done when we had a Labour Government. After all, we have had a Conservative Government for three and a half years. The original Act specified that there would be a review in five years—the very Act to which the Minister made reference. I think he spoke about Section 40.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman presented himself as helpless and hopeless as far as this position was concerned, and I am sure that he would not want to present himself to the country as either helpless or hopeless in this matter. If he really feels that something should be done about National Assistance, he should have the strength to say that if Section 40 prevents him from doing what he wants to do he will bring in an amending Section to that Act. That would be a simple thing to do.
I want to know from the Minister whether he is merely hiding behind Section 40. Does he really believe that what we did in Section 40 was the correct thing, or has he come to the same conclusion as we have come to on this side of the House, after seeing the working of these great schemes, that something ought to be done now? Over 1 million old people and over 300,000 chronic sick people received an increase in their old-age pension and in their sickness benefit and, in the same week, received a decrease in their assistance. Again, that seemed to me a very shocking thing to happen, particularly in a country which we are told by the Government is now prosperous. These people do not feel that they are prosperous, they do not feel that this is a prosperous country, because they feel strongly that if we were the prosperous country the Government are trying to pretend, we would not be as hard on them as we have been.
My own mother is an old-age pensioner. Her wants are simple and few, but I am glad that she is able to have them met and to have those things which I feel are necessary. I know, however, that if she were dependent—as over 1 million old people in this country are dependent on their pension and on a small supplementary pension—even her few simple wants would not be met. And what I would want for my mother, I have no right not to work to get for every elderly man and woman.
I am sure that the Minister can find ways and means of getting over Section 40 and of getting the National Assistance Board at least to give back to those old people what they have lost. Even if they get that back, they will still not be able to get what I think every old man and woman ought to have. I conclude with the words of one of our great poets—

something which old people have expressed to me time and time again:
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow her in the observations which she made in the earlier part of her speech. Her closing remark gives me the opportunity to follow much the same line of thought as she did, but in rather a different direction.
I imagine it was an experience common to all of us last month that our audiences, particularly when given the opportunity, were extremely sympathetic towards people living on small fixed incomes, whatever the source. While it is very difficult to assist certain types of such people, such as persons living on annuities or small investment incomes below the exemption limits, there are others who not only could be helped but certainly should be helped.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the widow with a pension of 10s. a week, but I hope no one will think that that is the only class to which I refer when I speak of the need of persons, in justice, to be helped. It may be that in this matter I have fancies in one or other direction, but I certainly feel that the pre-Oaksey police widows have not been treated as well as I should like them to be treated. Also, there are certain semi-State pensioners of pre-war times, like the county police, who are still on the same rate of pension as they received at a time when they were not permitted to contribute to any State scheme.
I take my stand as follows. If I, as an employer of labour, including salaried staff, were content to leave anybody who had had a considerable number of years of service and had reached retirement age in, say, 1935 on the pension which was considered at that time by the board or by me to be adequate and fair, I should then consider that I could very justifiably be criticised.
Consequently, I consider that the State and local authorities must set out to be good employers. Whatever the means and the difficulties were, I believe that the country would be behind the State and


the local authorities, not necessarily in bringing pensioners to the same level as is granted now when contributions are paid, but at least in going some way towards giving them the employers' share. I hope that the matter will be carefully considered by all concerned.
One does not want to compare one type of person with another, but there has undoubtedly come about something akin to an unfair reward in old age for the service rendered by individuals to their employers where the State and local authorities are judged by present day standards. I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will give the closest consideration not only to the angle which I have mentioned but also to the angle mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North.
I turn now to the remark of the Prime Minister that the prospect for wage earners, and perhaps salary earners, of having a greater share in industry lies not in nationalisation but in co-partnership, profit sharing, and so on. I have been propounding that doctrine for a great many years, and so I welcome that statement at least as much as anybody else. However, having spent a considerable number of hours endeavouring to work out schemes which could be operated, and having at the end of it found it easier to pull them to pieces because of their faults than to propound their virtues, I am convinced that there is no general scheme which can be operated throughout the country and throughout industry. I am certain that each industry, and perhaps each firm, must work out its own proposals.
I want to utter a word of warning to employers who contemplate introducing such schemes, as I hope employers will do. I believe a necessary preliminary to be a consultative council where executive management can meet wage earners and salary earners. Lack of information and understanding leads to lack of confidence. These schemes have gone wrong in the past in that, while the profit, bonus, and so on, has been on the upgrade it has been gratefully received, when things have turned the other way wage earners have been inclined to think that they have been "had for mugs," perhaps because of some technicality.
That does not happen where there is machinery to enable representatives of the wage earners to consult the management, who should be explaining every month why they are doing something and not doing something else. Incidentally, that is an education to the people on the consultative councils, and helps them to take higher and more responsible posts. A word of warning must be uttered here. Such a consultative council must on no account trespass upon matters which are normally the subject of negotiation or consultation between industry and the trade unions, such as wages.
If such consultative councils are organised in order to provide a two-way flow between the two sides, confidence is engendered between them, and that, particularly if allied with co-ownership, co-partnership or profit sharing, will lead to peace in industry, which is what we all seek. It will also give individual wage earners their share—I will not be tempted into details because it is a very big subject—of the good times, to which, I candidly believe, they are entitled, apart from through the wage machinery. There are hon. Members opposite who are operating some extremely successful schemes. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will examine schemes which are already in existence and ascertain how they can be adapted to their own industrial concerns, for I am sure that they will be beneficial to the individuals and the firms themselves.
I want to speak briefly on an entirely different subject, which I note has been omitted from the Gracious Speech, perhaps because of the modesty of the Government Front Bench. There has been considerable feeling on both sides of the House that an increase in the salaries of junior Ministers was long overdue. Certain hon. Members opposite may wish to see that remain a hope.
The salaries of junior Ministers today, however, allowing for the alteration made in their Parliamentary salaries, are not comparable with what those men and women would be able to earn in industry. What is more, the effect of the performance of their duties in the House is of far greater importance to the country as a whole than would be the case if they were in industry. I hope, therefore, that this modesty, if modesty it be, will be


put into the background and that before long we shall see some Measure introduced—perhaps after negotiations through the usual channels—for the salaries of these men and women to be put on a higher level.

7.51 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: Although it may seem a relatively small matter, I should like to add my support to the plea made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), who spoke about a chiropody service for old people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health may remember that a short time ago she answered a Question of mine on this subject and I know that other Questions have been put by other hon. Members. If I remember her reply correctly, it was to the effect that her right hon. Friend would like to do more, but did not have the finance available. We all know that the care of the feet is a matter of great importance to old people and this scheme is something I should like to see throughout the country on a much bigger basis. If that topic could be mentioned in the reply to the debate tonight, it would be of great interest both to local authorities and to old people.
Although it is not my intention to develop this theme, I was particularly distressed that in the Gracious Speech there was no mention of old-age pensioners. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) opened the debate, and referred to National Assistance and the National Assistance scales, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance afterwards said that with her experience my right hon. Friend should know that there could be no mention of that in the Gracious Speech. However, I am quite sure that he fully realised what she intended to convey.
We were all deeply distressed to find out—particularly during the Election campaign—that old people who have had the increase of 7s. 6d., and who then have had 5s. or more taken away from their National Assistance scales, are not only unable to have an increasing standard of living, but are quite unable to buy the necessities of life. I cannot believe that there is any hon. Member on the Government benches who would not accept that fact.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, both at Question Time yesterday and in the debate today, has consistently shied away from the possibility of doing anything about that matter. It is not possible to avoid it by saying that matters have been referred to national advisory committees, or that we are awaiting a debate on the Phillips Report. We on this side, and, I venture to say, on that side, too, believe that one of the biggest blots on the record of this Conservative Government is that in the Gracious Speech they talk about an ever higher standard of living being secured for the whole nation and, at the same time—as every hon. Member knows who has knocked on the doors in the Election campaign—there are hundreds of thousands of old people who do not know which way to turn. I hope that if the Minister says he does not have the powers to do something about this at present, he will seek to take them. There is not the slightest doubt that he would receive the support of the entire House.
I want to turn to something else and to look at the social services in general. If we look back over the past, social service legislation in this country has been a patchwork. If we look back as far as the nineteenth century, we can see that our social services developed in a very haphazard way. That was because in the nineteenth century people suddenly became aware of an abuse. There was then a public outcry about that abuse, and if the outcry was sufficiently vocal we had legislation.
That meant that although that legislation was very necessary, it bore no relation at all to social priorities. In the twentieth century we have seen a change in development and I need only give three obvious examples, the Minority Report on the Poor Law, the Beveridge Report and the legislation of the Labour Government. These show that, at last, we were getting unification of the social services and, even more important than that unification, we have in this century been establishing the principle that the community must provide these services for its citizens in any new social order which we seek to build.
We have heard a lot in the past few months to the effect that there is very little to choose in some matter of policy between the opposite sides of the House.


In social policy there is all the difference in the world. If one looks at the way social affairs have been tackled in this country through the ages, there, deep down, one will find the roots which separate the two main political parties. I should like to be fair, but I believe that if one looks back at the Tory attitude on the social services and administration of the social services, one will see that the Tories have said "Why should any social service be provided without a test of need?"
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself, in conjunction with his colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in 1952, asked in a publication of the Conservative Central Office, why there should be any social services without test of need. On this side of the House we look upon social security as a right of the citizen. I very much hope that in the years to come we shall try to develop the social services with the aim that they should be given to a citizen as of right, without test of means.
It would be no use saying that, unless one explained how the money should be found. As we are now discussing social services in general, we may look at this matter, because it is obviously most important. There are three ways in which money for the social services may be provided, particularly if we need that money to provide these services as of right, without their being subject to a means test. The first is a scheme of graduated contributions.
Obviously, if contributions were assessed according to income, the poor would pay less and the rich more while the scheme would remain actuarially sound. However, there are three points we should consider. The first is that if we make too steep a graduation in contributions, that may lead to a demand for increased benefits by those paying the larger contributions, or, alternatively, those paying the larger contributions may ask permission to contract out of the scheme. Secondly, such demands would be difficult to oppose, because we have to remember that the higher income groups were not covered by the pre-war insurance scheme. Thirdly, employers' contributions would also have to be considered. Should this be graduated according to the employees' wages, or remain

at a flat rate? The last point I want to make here is that even if we had such a scheme the labour of sticking on the stamps each week would still be necessary, as would a large staff to check the number of contributions paid.
A second method of providing the money would be to impose a social security tax. Such a tax, like the graduated contribution scheme, would be linked to ability to pay, but I believe that it would have four definite advantages over the contribution scheme. First, while safeguarding the solvency of the fund, it would be a much more difficult scheme to contract out of than an ordinary scheme of graduated contributions. Secondly, such a tax would not cost as much to collect, because the existing Inland Revenue machinery could be used.
Thirdly, it would save the enormous amount of work which is involved in stamping the cards and examining them to ensure that everyone has made the correct contribution—because if such a scheme were implemented, benefits would be available to all as of right, as in the Health Service, and not only by virtue of having paid sufficient contributions. We all frequently hear very distressing tales about people who are just not eligible for social security benefits because they have one stamp too few. A social security tax would remove that hardship. Fourthly, such a tax would automatically bring in more income in times of inflation and rising wages, and that would help to meet the increased cost of benefits.
It is only fair to put the other side of the argument. First, we should have to decide whether such a tax should apply only to the existing Income Tax ranges or be extended to cover all workers, so that everyone would pay something. It is arguable that if such a tax were extended to cover all ranges of incomes the underlying element of the contributory principle would be maintained. Secondly, we should have to consider the position of the employer. At present, he pays almost half the National Insurance contribution. Should he pay a social security tax in respect of each of his workers? Hon. Members will know that in New Zealand, where a social security tax of 7½ per cent. is levied on all incomes, the employer pays a tax not in respect of each employee but in respect of his own corporate


income. Thirdly, we should have to consider whether this tax should be limited to cover the existing insurance scheme, or be extended to other social services, such as the Health Service, which is at present provided for out of general taxation.
That brings me to a third method of raising the money, namely, out of general taxation. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not agree that this ought to be done. But in 1911 the Labour Party was divided on the issue of whether the National Health Insurance scheme should be financed out of public funds or should be contributory. To those people who say that it would be a radical departure from the insurance principle to provide social services out of general taxation I would only say that there is already a large Exchequer contribution from general taxation to the National Insurance Fund which, in itself, involves a radical departure from insurance principles. There is no question but that it would be administratively much more simple to find all benefits out of general taxation, which, in any case, is related to ability to pay.
In this modern age I believe that it is quite wrong that social services should be paid for by all citizens at the same rate, irrespective of what they earn.

Mr. Houghton: Does my hon. Friend mean that all benefits would also have to be graduated—or would they be flat rate benefits?

Miss Burton: I shall deal with that question, although I have not as much knowledge of it as has my hon. Friend.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am interested in this suggestion although, quite frankly, I do not see how it can work. It is simple if one is self-employed, or has only one employee, but does the hon. Member suggest that people who have thousands or tens of thousands of employees should pay their insurance?

Miss Burton: I shall not insult the right hon. Gentleman by saying that he was not listening to what I was saying; so I presume that I did not make myself clear. I was suggesting three possible methods of paying for social services—first, a graduated contributions scheme; secondly, a social security tax; and, thirdly, a contribution from general

taxation. Speaking in connection with a social security tax, I did say that this system was in vogue in New Zealand—and I can see no reason why what New Zealand can do we cannot do.
To reply to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I had not assumed that people would receive different benefits. I was putting forward the principle that in the world of today payment for social services should be made by people according to their incomes. In other words, those who receive more should pay more. I certainly had not in mind that there should be a different scale of benefits. I believe that those who are earning £10 or £20 a week should pay more towards social service benefits than those earning £5 a week.
It appears to me that in roughly 20 years' time we shall have one person retired for every three who are at work. I have been told—I do not know whether it is correct—that the cost of old-age pensions in that case would be more than that of the present Health Service. I believe that such a position would be impossible to meet by a system of flat-rate contributions from all members of the community, because such contributions would have to be far too large; indeed, contributions have been increased during the past month.
I believe that when people reach the retiring age they should receive pensions upon which they can live, not in luxury, but at a reasonable standard. I do not believe that that position can be achieved by collecting a flat-rate contribution from everybody. It would be quite wrong of me to say that unless I were prepared to suggest the way in which the money should be raised. I believe that it should be collected from all our citizens, and that contributions should be graduated according to ability to pay.
We on this side of the House believe that we have a moral obligation to look after the old and the weak—and we would aim at this being their right, and that they should not have to come and ask for it. I am not trying to be rude, but one of the main differences between hon. Members opposite and the Labour Party is that the Government have always "separated" the people who are in real need from those who are not. They "separate"


people who live on their old-age pensions from those who cannot manage on them because they have nothing else, and have to apply for National Assistance in addition. The Tory thesis is that people must "come and ask for it" and must prove their need.
I am not concerned with which party introduced which Act, but social security, today, is not being provided as of right. It is being provided by the National Assistance Board which, before it is able to help anyone, has to satisfy itself that the person in question is poor, that he is in need of poor relief—and I believe that to be quite wrong. That is why we on this side of the House, as a first step forward anyway, proposed that there should be established a Ministry of Social Welfare. I was not surprised when hon. Members opposite asked "Why do that?" rather implying "What's in a name?" There is everything in a name to people who know full well what it is to suffer from a means test and to have to ask for National Assistance.
I believe that Mr. George Buchanan, who went from this House to be Chairman of the National Assistance Board, did a wonderful job in that post. He humanised the Board in a way that had never been done before. But I believe that today it would be a very great advantage if people who still have to ask for supplementary help did not have to apply to a board which was separated from the place where other people get their pensions. That is why we have suggested that there should be a Ministry of Social Welfare.
I have put forward these opinions because this is a new Parliament, and there is no reason why we should always go on as we have done in the past. I believe that pensions for the old people today are inadequate. I see no way of making them adequate unless those of us who earn more are prepared to make a bigger contribution towards those pensions than people who earn less.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I want to join with some of my hon. Friends in expressing keen disappointment at the fact that the Gracious Speech, apart from references to family allowances, does not mention proposed changes in National Insurance, including industrial injuries. I

deplore the fact chiefly because we never had an opportunity of considering in any detail, on the quinquennial review, the administration and structure of the National Insurance Act. It will be recalled that the Government Actuary's Report on industrial injuries came after the debate on the general comprehensive National Insurance Scheme in December. Therefore, after five years' experience of the working of the National Insurance Act, the House has never had the opportunity of dealing with the anomalies and injustices which experience has revealed in the working of that Act.
The Minister said earlier today that although the Gracious Speech did not contain any reference to the National Insurance Act, it did not follow that some changes may not take place in National Insurance, even during the present Session. The House is entitled to know what the Minister has in mind, and if he proposes any changes we ought to know what they are likely to be. After all, we are dealing with the poorer sections of the community—the disabled, the sick, and the retirement pensioners. The House should have an opportunity of knowing what the Minister has in mind, and, in any event, I should have thought that on such an important matter the Gracious Speech would have contained some reference to the National Insurance Act and its administration.
I want to draw attention to certain anomalies which still exist under the Act. It is a question not so much of rates of benefit as of the anomalies which are giving rise to a lack of confidence in the National Insurance Scheme. Some of the principles of the Scheme are very sound, but the Scheme is being undermined because of the continued existence of administrative anomalies and the lack of any regulations to remedy them. It is not only a human problem. The National Insurance Scheme and the Industrial Injuries Act cannot be dissociated from the economic situation of the country, They are interlocked.
Reference was made by a previous speaker to retirement pensions. The Labour Government introduced a scheme whereby men were encouraged to work after 65 years of age. We hear in the House and in the country talk of the necessity for giving every encouragement to men, and women if necessary, to continue to work as long as possible. We


have heard that we need higher production, and we should do all we possibly can to maintain and improve our economic position. That involves manpower. We have heard that on every side.
It has been suggested that there should be a scheme whereby people employed in Government Departments should be encouraged to work after the age of 65. No doubt, the Labour Government had that matter in mind when they brought into operation a scheme whereby increments were given to men who were prepared to work after 65 so that their pensions could be increased by the time they retired. Many men are capable of doing certain forms of employment and they are better off for doing the work.
The Labour Government put that scheme into operation several years ago. Having heard so much talk about retirement pensioners and the added liability upon the State, I should have thought that we should have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to put into operation some scheme which would increase these pensions in order to give further encouragement to retirement pensioners.
As I have said on a previous occasion, that is not the most serious aspect of the problem. Those men and women who work after 65 years of age may have to give up working subsequently. They may have earned the added increments. It may be 5s. or 7s. 6d. for a man and his wife. They may fall sick. They have made every effort to continue in employment, but find that they cannot continue any longer, and have to apply for National Assistance.
What I deplore is the fact that if those people have to seek some supplementary National Assistance, the increments that they have earned after 65 are taken into consideration in assessing the amount of supplementary National Assistance. That is a miserable and niggardly policy to adopt. Elderly men are being asked to continue working after 65, and yet the Government say to such people, "We are bound to take into consideration what you have earned after 65 years of age when ascertaining need."
That policy ought to be abolished. I should like to hear from the right hon.
Gentleman whether the Government intend to continue such a policy. There is an economic aspect to this problem. There is the necessity for more manpower and more production. Yet there is no real encouragement to people to work longer and produce more.
There is another problem. The Minister of Health and others, including the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who have spoken on National Insurance from time to time, have said that we should do everything possible to encourage superannuation schemes in industry. The miners now have a pension scheme, after lengthy negotiations. The men contribute to the scheme. But now everything they get over 10s. 6d. by way of pension is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes. Many men say, "What is the purpose of the scheme? If some of us have to go on National Assistance, this pension towards which we contribute is taken into consideration when ascertaining our need."
There is therefore a feeling among the miners that in the circumstances this pension scheme is hardly worth while. That is not the way in which to encourage superannuation schemes. While I agree that some figure must be laid down, surely the present figure of 10s. 6d. should be raised to at least £1. The same situation arises in connection with workmen's compensation. If a man is receiving anything over £1 a week in compensation, that amount is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes.
These rates of benefits have been in operation for some years, and I submit that these disregards could now very well be raised. Why not raise the disregards which have been so irksome to ageing workmen and those who are injured?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Values have changed.

Mr. Finch: I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the question of those widows receiving 10s. a week and of other widows has been referred to the Advisory Committee, and that we shall hear more about those matters later. As I have said before, however, this is a very spasmodic way of dealing with the problem. In this case we are dealing only with widows. Their problems are very important and I do not want to belittle them but, as I have


already mentioned, there are other aspects of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes. The right hon. Gentleman gave us not the slightest indication that we are to be given an opportunity of reviewing the anomalies which exist under the National Insurance Act.
Let me refer, briefly, to one or two cases. Some time ago I referred to the question of the unemployability allowance. I hope that the Minister of Health, with his experience, will take note of this. What is the unemployability allowance and for what is it paid? It was put into operation under the Industrial Injuries Act for the purpose of giving some payment to a man who was not entitled to sickness benefit but who to some extent was incapable of employment. He could be given unemployability allowance. In accordance with the Act, the Commissioners have given a fair interpretation of Section 13, and have said that where a man is capable of earning more than £1 a week he is not entitled to unemployability allowance. That figure of £1 remains today. It has not been increased.
I could cite case after case to the House of men, some suffering from new pneumoconiosis, where a medical board has said, "This individual is capable of only a sitting down job. He is capable of only the very lightest work." I will not burden the House with the details but I have a case of a man of whom the authorities have said that owing to the loss of a leg and incapacity to his arms he is capable of doing only a very light job indeed, but the Commissioners have said that he is capable of earning £1 a week.
That figure of £1 has lost its value. One could almost say that a man who is totally incapacitated might be able to pick up a job for a few weeks at £1 a week. The margin between being totally incapacitated and being able to earn £1 a week is such that one could say that there is scarcely any difference. I submit that the figure of £1 could very well be raised. Where a man has applied for unemployability allowance £1 is a very low figure on which to decide whether he is capable of work or not.
Another aspect of this problem, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and others have spoken with me on previous occasions—and I will not take up much time on it—

is that of the hardship allowance. We have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions but we do not seem to be making any progress. That, again, is having a very serious effect upon industrial workers. Here again I am not referring principally to rates of benefit. I do not regard the hardship allowance as sufficient; but what is more serious is the fact that it is not payable in so many cases where a man "tries his employment."
In order to receive hardship allowance a man must be permanently incapacitated or since the end of the period of injury benefit must have been unable to return to his pre-accident employment or employment of an equivalent standard. There are many men who "try their employment," who say, "I am going back to work at the end of the injury benefit period. I intend to have a go at it and to try." They may have been colliers on piece rates or skilled engineers, and they try to do their work for, say, 6, 9 or 12 months. Because they go back to their old jobs for such a time—anything over three to six months—the hardship allowance is not payable if they ultimately fail. Here we are putting a penalty upon the trier, upon the man who has responded to the appeal, "Try your job! Go back to your ordinary work and increase production." He does so and then suffers a penalty.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a county court judge, faced with a case in which a man has "tried his work," and having been convinced on the evidence that the man has been a trier, would regard him as entitled to compensation at the maximum rate. I have raised this question in the House before, but I see very little progress being made. It is creating a lack of confidence among industrial workers in the administration of this Scheme.
Three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) brought forward a Bill to deal with the question of accidents. The House will recall that under the Industrial Injuries Act, as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, before a man is entitled to compensation or injury benefit he must show that he has sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. "Accident" means something which has happened at a particular moment. If the trouble is brought


on gradually, then unless it is a scheduled industrial disease the man is not entitled to compensation.
We had a long debate on the subject, and ultimately the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance agreed to refer it to a committee, now known as the Beney Committee. That was three years ago. Particularly in the mining industry we had in mind the case of a man suffering from rheumatism as a result of working in water. If he suffers from rheumatism as a result of a sudden inrush of water, that is something which happened on a certain date and at a certain time and can be regarded as an accident. If the man has been working in water underground for a month or two months and then sustains rheumatism that is not regarded as an accident.
We wanted the definition widened. The Beney Committee was set up three years ago. We have heard nothing about it since, and three years is a long time. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some information as to the position in regard to definition of accidents.
I wish to join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in saying that the time has arrived, after five years' operation of the National Insurance Act and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, when we need to reorganise this vast scheme. It was a great experiment, and those who supported it at the time regarded it as a great step forward. That is why we were so disappointed when last December there was not a thorough review of the Scheme. We have had no assurance from the Government this evening that they are going to review the Scheme.
Apart from that we say that the five years' working of the Scheme has shown that National Assistance should be merged with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. That should be done, not only by an alteration in name, but in order to co-ordinate all this work. The National Assistance Board has done a good job, but it is a separate statutory body. Thousands are receiving injury benefits or sickness benefits and supplementary pensions from the National Assistance Board. It is all, as it were, under the same scheme. We are supplementing sickness insurance or injury benefit and the time has come to co-ordinate these various Departments

and put them under the Ministry of National Insurance.
I hope that one outcome of this debate will be that the Minister will seriously consider the points of view which we have expressed today. He has been given a wealth of knowledge by the speeches delivered in the House on this subject in the last 12 or 18 months by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who have made valuable contributions to these debates but it seems that nothing has come out of all this effort. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that miners, in particular are losing confidence in these great National Insurance Acts.
The anomalies to which we have referred could be put right by regulations. I am not referring at the moment to increases in benefits but to what could be done by regulations in order to improve the smooth working of these great Acts. I hope that what has been said by my colleagues will receive serious notice so that anomalies and injustices may be removed and we can make this great Scheme better than what it is.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) —whom I often feel inclined to describe as "my hon. Friend"—always makes an important contribution to debates on these subjects. I should like to support what he has suggested about the different disregards. As the benefits which were originally fixed have now been deemed inadequate and this House on a number of occasions has increased those benefits, there seems to be a strong case for taking the view that those disregards, deemed adequate years ago, might similarly be not adequate under present conditions.
I also take that view in respect of the so-called earnings rule. I do not share the views of those who have sometimes suggested in this House that the earnings rule should go altogether because I feel that that would have the obvious effect of destroying the other aspect of the National Health Scheme, which we want to encourage—to persuade people, of their own volition, to work a little longer. In that regard we have been reasonably


successful—more than reasonably successful—as now a large number of retirement pensioners work until the age of 67 and even 68 and the average is considerably above the retirement age of 65 in respect of men. If we removed the earnings rule altogether and permitted people to earn unlimited amounts of money and receive their full pension, obviously all would do so.
Nevertheless, with that reservation, I think there is a considerable case for saying that if a certain sum of money were deemed adequate when the Scheme first came into operation and was then the correct amount, it should now be proper for a retirement pensioner to earn £1, or perhaps even a slightly larger sum, in addition to the amount he is at present allowed, without diminution of his retirement pension.

Mr. Houghton: The amount was 20s. and is now 40s. I presume the hon. Member means to suggest 60s.

Mr. Gower: I appreciate that, but I do not think it destroys the argument. As there was a case for the increase from 20s. to 40s. there is now a case for an increase to a larger amount.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, who obviously is bound to consider all these matters, will give special consideration to the possibility of increasing the amount which retirement pensioners may earn without suffering deduction of their retirement pension. As the hon. Member for Bedwellty has said, that would appear to apply with equal force in respect to the disregards.
We in this House certainly want to encourage industrial pension schemes of all kinds, whether in nationalised or private industry. One of the most appropriate methods of encouraging these schemes is to make the beneficiaries sure that in their retirement they will be able to receive most of the proceeds of their industrial pensions without losing something of the benefit of their retirement pensions. This is an extremely important matter. In the last Parliament, I had the honour to introduce a Motion on pension schemes in conjunction with co-partner-ship and profit sharing, and on that occasion the House accepted the Motion. I ask my right hon. Friend to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in

particular that there are still serious obstacles to firms and companies who seek to introduce either co-partnership, profit sharing or pensions schemes.
I have had experience recently, both in my constituency and in the City of Cardiff, of enlightened firms which sought to introduce such schemes but which appeared to come up against all kinds of obstacles in the shape of Regulations and ancient Acts of Parliament. It is a most noticeable disincentive to them when they try to introduce these schemes. I hope that measures may be taken whenever possible to smooth out the difficulties and make the introduction of such schemes far easier than at present.
The peculiar problems of the so-called 10s. widow have been mentioned a great deal in this debate. I know that probably in the strict logic of things it may be said that this class of the community has received all to which it is strictly entitled. It may be said that the case is not comparable with that of pensioners whose benefits have been increased progressively so many times in the last five years. That argument breaks down, however, when we realise that many of the people who receive the increased benefits, even by way of retirement pensions, will never have paid for them. Indeed, all the older beneficiaries will have their benefits paid for by the younger contributors.
If there is—and it has been accepted that there is—a case for all people to receive the larger benefits irrespective of whether their own contributions have earned those benefits, there would seem to be a reasonable case for taking a more humanitarian view of the benefits which are paid to these widows. It is all very well to argue these things out in theory but it is extremely difficult to explain to a widow who receives 10s. a week why her pension has remained stationary while all other pensions have risen several times.
I should like to call attention to something which is related to another social service, that of housing. I refer to those private roads about which a Question was asked this afternoon by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). There are a large number of these private roads in the part of my constituency which abuts upon the City of Cardiff. It is exasperating for people who occupy houses on these private roads to see newer


roads, on private and municipal estates, being built and to see families move in and enjoy the amenities of decent roads while they themselves have lived in private streets which have been unmade since 1939 or for even longer periods.
There is another aspect of the problem. Every year, every month, that elapses the amount of the road charges which these people will be required to pay is likely to increase. So I submit that this is a matter which should be regarded with some urgency. First the Minister of Housing and Local Government should address himself to the problem of providing greater assistance to local authorities, and should convey to the local authorities which are concerned with the matter a greater sense of urgency in dealing with it.
The first thing is to get the job done. Every winter many of my constituents, and, I am sure, constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who have to live in such places in such conditions, find themselves, their children and their older relatives, struggling through badly lit streets, and up to their ankles, sometimes up to their knees, in mud. Those are conditions which very few if any of the people living in new houses, whether privately owned of municipally owned, have to endure. So the first thing is to get the job done, to sage many families from having to endure next winter such conditions as they have endured for so many winters since before the war.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this situation has been made more difficult for owner-occupiers by the raising by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the interest rates?

Mr. Gower: I think that the conditions have always been difficult for these people.
Nothing has been done about this problem for about twenty years. The war made it extremely difficult to get this job done, and I exonerate Governments of both parties because of that fact. Had there been no war the job would probably have been done. However, now, in this year of grace, 1955, we should be finishing this job, overcoming this problem. It is urgent, too, because we want the job done before

the price of doing it goes up any more. I hope that a solution will be found, and I put this case forward reasonably, I hope, but with as much force as, I believe, it merits.
I sincerely hope that the clearing of the slums and the older houses, and the provision of improved amenities, will be accomplished within the lifetime of this Parliament, to such an extent that this Parliament may be remembered for doing that job, as probably the last Parliament will be remembered as being the one which saw the breaking of the main problems in the provision of new houses.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I shall take only a few minutes of the time of the House. It will be long enough to express my grave disappointment at the speech of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I do not complain unduly that the Gracious Speech had to leave a great deal out. Obviously, it could be of a certain length only, and could not cover everything, but one would have expected the speech of the Minister responsible for these services, the first Ministerial speech on social services, to have had some grandeur about it, some nobility.
One would have expected some dreaming of dreams in it, some vision of the future, even although the Government had to confess after two or three years in office that they had not yet realised their main objective. There was no such grand conception in the Minister's speech. It was an assortment of bits and pieces. Important bits, important pieces; I do not decry them; there are many things to be tidied up before the social insurance schemes are satisfactory in all respects.
It is quite surprising how keenly some people feel about the injustices, as they see them, in the operation of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes. Their sense of grievance against the minor injustices of administration or the rules of the Schemes seems to be greater than their complaint about the bigger social inequalities which confront them every day of their lives, and we have to attend to that if people are to be satisfied.
I believe that in this Parliament, however, there should be some fundamental thinking about the future aim of social


security and we on this side of the House will have to do it, because I do not think that the Tories will. They are not given to fundamental thinking on social development. Indeed, they have retained power merely by stealing other people's thunder. They have never made any thunder of their own on problems of social provision, and from this side of the House we have to answer some important questions.
What are the basic aims of social security? Are we prepared any longer to think in terms of Beveridge minimum subsistence pensions? Are we to think now in bolder terms, not in terms of the construction of a cost-of-living index for old people or even of looking at the cost-of-living index itself, but of having more regard to the wage level? The standard pension for married couples now is only one-third of the average wage. That is not adequate social provision for one's retirement. The civil servant and the local government employee and the teacher would not think so, and thousands of executives and directors throughout industry would not think so either. Therefore, we have to look at our scheme of social security more in relation to a national superannuation scheme than to an insurance scheme which is based on outmoded prewar thought which has its foundation dug deeply into prewar Public Assistance, for that was the Beveridge conception written up to date.
How it is to be paid for opens up some challenging thoughts. I warn my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who put forward some interesting but not new suggestions on how social services should be paid for, that we shall encounter the strong traditional thought of the trade union movement on the contributory principle, the Hat-rate principle of contributions and benefit, and on the right to benefit. All are vitally important to trade unionists. They will not relinquish them lightly without very firm guarantees that social security to them will be as secure in the future as they believe the existing scheme to be. We have to build on that conception.
There are all sorts of developments of that theme which we can incorporate into a bolder National Insurance Scheme. I

do not believe that we need shrink from asking the country quite seriously to consider what it wants in our social provisions in the future. I am sure that it will say one thing—that it wants to get rid of National Assistance. There is far too much of it. The Minister hoped that it would be drastically reduced, but he did not suggest that that should be done by making retirement pensions more adequate.
He suggested as a possible means of reducing claims on National Assistance a combination of other factors, such as vocational superannuation, the product of thrift and other ancillary aids to retirement. I do not deny that they are important, but I think that the only real challenge to the inroads of National Assistance on our scheme of social security is to make National Insurance pensions more adequate for the modest needs of old people, and I believe that the country would be prepared to pay for it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Income Tax remissions in his last Budget alone, relieved taxpayers of an amount which would have increased every retirement pension and widow's pension by 10s. a head. That would have been a great advance and would have brought the Government back by a majority of 159 and not 59. The Government chose to do it the other way. It is no good the Government saying the country cannot afford it. It is no good saying that a community with a rising national income cannot afford more adequate provision for the aged.
Let me say this, in conclusion. The people who ought to be thinking of social provision for old age are not the old-age pensioners of today. Those who can shape the future are those who, at 5 have ten years in which to do it before their turn comes. All those who are middle-aged should now be giving serious attention to the problem of provision for their old age.
Members of the trade union movement will have to give more challenging thought to how they will provide for their own retirement in due course. There is no hope of the Government doing any more than patching up, removing anomalies, scraping together the bits and pieces and getting along with the minimum amount of original thought about


the Scheme. So I hope that in the next three or four years, while we have the opportunity, we shall give the Government something to think about.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has referred in glowing terms to a future of unlimited expenditure, and total disregard of the insurance principles which the country desires to retain in its National Insurance benefits. I do not propose, beyond that, to follow him in what he has said, but will deal with one or two questions about mental hospitals, educational services and taxation, though if I have time to deal with more than the first I shall be surprised.
Mental hospitals, under this Government, have been promised a better future than they have had a past. That does not relate only to buildings, but also to staff as well. These institutions are large in number and their welfare in the future is extremely important. I have a case in my own constituency where a very large mental hospital has been unable to obtain proper buildings for training for nurses of both sexes because the regional hospital board will not provide the necessary facilities. If I have not sent the Minister full particulars of that case I promise to do so in the near future. Unless the young people are given proper training facilities and proper buildings in which they can carry out those functions, we will be unable to obtain recruits for the mental nursing service which is so vital to this country.
Then there is the question of salaries. The salaries in the neighbourhood of the big towns, particularly London, are weighted, that is to say, a higher amount of salary is offered nearer these big towns than is the case further out. In theory, that is a very good idea, but in practice. where one mental hospital is just on one side of the line and another on the other side, it is very difficult to explain to the staff getting the smaller income why they should be worse off than those in the neighbouring nearby institution, because they look upon it that they are living in exactly the same district with the same expenses to meet. This is a question which will have to be looked at with a slightly more human eye than has been the case in the past.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us where the line should be drawn?

Mr. Doughty: The line should be properly drawn with a view to where the hospitals are situated rather than a geographical line. The latter might pass through the grounds of one hospital, but outside the grounds of another. There ought to be a readjustment one way or another so that both hospitals are either inside or outside the line, preferably inside. Where the line is drawn arbitrarily on a mileage basis there will be these irregularities where one hospital gets the extra emoluments while another nearby does not.
Many of the older mental hospitals were designed many years ago and were the best that then could be provided. Today, although the buildings are very sound, they are very old-fashioned, and I assure the Minister of Health that, where money can be spent upon the wards of these hospitals, they can be enormously improved for quite a small outlay. The old wards which have brick walls and are equipped with very hard beds and are unattractive, but when a certain amount of money has been reasonably spent on them, the wards become more attractive, the beds more pleasant and life is less hard for the patients in them.
I have been round one such large mental hospital in my own constituency, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that between modernised wards and the old ones not yet modernised there is all the difference in the world in appearance, while the difference in expense is really very slight indeed. I mention that because I think this question cannot in every single case be left to the regional hospital board, but that where we are to modernise old hospitals the Minister of Health himself must take an active personal interest in proposals and suggestions for modernisation.
Passing from mental hospitals to the ordinary general hospitals which the public use, I want to issue a word of warning against over-specialisation. It may be sound from the medical point of view for each particular hospital to deal with a particular subject or form of complaint, and the medical point of view may be very good, but it is not always the best for the patient. If the patient is suffering from a complaint


which can be dealt with perfectly well in a general hospital, and if the matter is not one of some complication, demanding expert knowledge, it is much better that the patient should be treated in a hospital, small or large, not too far away from his home, at which his friends can visit him and from which he can be allowed out for a short time. In such circumstances, patients would not feel themselves carried too far away from the circles in which they have been brought up. If, however, the patient is suffering from a rare complaint which requires very complicated treatment, it may be necessary to take him to a special hospital, but, with the exception of that particular kind of case, I ask my right hon. Friend not to apply over-specialisation to the hospitals.
The Gracious Speech also refers to the provision that will have to be made in the course of this Session, and we are all agreed at least upon one matter. As the hon. Member for Sowerby said, taxation in this country is too high. If taxation is too high, trade will suffer and we shall be priced out of the markets of the world. There was a welcome reduction during the last Parliament, and I hope that the rates of taxation will again be reduced in this Parliament, though as soon as we begin to talk of any reductions in taxation, every hon. Member has his own particular favourites to bring forward in regard to both direct and indirect taxation.
I would recommend hon. Members to read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. I do not claim to have read it all myself, but I have read some of it, and I think that parts of the Report and excellent. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he deals with his next Budget, will refer to some parts of that Report. As far as the proposed capital gains tax is concerned, I hope that we have finally heard the last of it. From those who understand the matter, we certainly have. The extra inquiries and the private matters that would have to be disclosed if the recommendations of this Commission were adopted are such that I hope they will not be included in any Finance Bill.
I want to put in a word for the Millard Tucker Report. Here, like all Members

of the House of Commons, I have to declare an interest. Unless this Report is adopted, professional people and people who are self-employed will be unable to save for their later life. I therefore hope that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces another Finance Bill he will refer to the Millard Tucker Report and its recommendations.
There were other matters that I had intended to raise, but time is passing, and I will, therefore, conclude my remarks on the Gracious Speech with what I have just said.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: We have had a debate today on the Loyal Address which our forebears a generation ago would have called a debate on the condition of the people, in the course of which we have had many notable speeches ranging over many subjects and raising important issues to which I hope we shall return, because many of them deserve special consideration in this Parliament.
I want to join in the tributes already paid to three notable speeches we have heard today, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Mahon), Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). Those of us who heard these three maiden speeches were deeply impressed by the knowledge and experience which the hon. Members brought to the problems with which they dealt. Having heard them overcome this first hurdle, we shall look forward with great interest to their contributions to our future debates because we believe that all three hon. Members have a notable contribution to make to our discussions.
One thing is clear, that this Session, which is due to last until the end of the summer or autumn of next year, will not be a notable one in the sphere of social services. There is to be a Bill, which we welcome, to amend the Family Allowances Act but, apart from that, there is no indication that any big change is contemplated in this respect. It will, therefore, be a disappointing Session to all of us who had looked forward to the gathering together of the experience gained in these matters in the last few years, and to that fundamental thinking which some of my hon. Friends, such as the hon.


Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) have been giving to social insurance.
Nine years have gone by since we framed the 1946 legislation. By 5th July of this year we shall have had eight years' experience of its working and of the first attempt ever made in any country to try to apply the traditional methods of contributory insurance to the entire population. In the course of that experience we have learned a great deal, and I regret to confirm what has been said already, that in the speech of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance this afternoon we did not find that breadth of view, that vision, or presentation to the House and to the country of all that has been learned from our experience of these schemes.
In the time available I propose to confine myself to trying to express some of the things which we believe this House ought to be considering and, indeed, the things we would be doing if the Election had turned the other way. Let me, therefore, come to the major lessons we have learned—all of us, including myself and all those who had a part in framing the legislation which brought these schemes into operation.
It began in 1942 with the publication of the Beveridge Report. Beveridge laid it down that we ought to seek, by the insurance principle, to cover virtually the whole of the population, and to provide what he described as a subsistence rate of benefit to cover the major adversities of life. By and large, the House adopted his proposals, his schemes, his principles, and tried to translate them into legislation.
What has happened? The first thing is that we have not been able to provide on a contributory basis a scheme which covers everybody in the population. The last Measure which the Minister brought before the House was a confession of that. We welcomed that small Measure, but I hope we understand its significance, which is that we must raise the income levels below which people will not be compelled to pay contributions. I ask the House to realise that by exempting more people from paying contributions we are destroying one of the principles of the Beveridge proposal—its universal character. By so doing, we are, in effect, saying that there is a certain section of our population, the size of which is growing, for the compulsory insurance of

which a flat-rate contribution cannot make provision. The Minister has not been able to give us any figures, but it is clear that that section is growing all the time.
There is another fact which is of very great importance. In spite of all our efforts, from the very outset almost, the benefits have continually been falling behind the cost of living. We have a problem there. How are we to deal with it? The Minister has not had yet even suggested that it is a problem; but it is. The proposals for the new benefits which came into operation in April were before this House at the end of last year. Between the time the Bill was before the House and the time the new scales were brought into operation, their real value had fallen behind. They do not mean now what they meant in terms of purchasing power last December. How are we to deal with the problem of having a scale of benefits which is continually being undermined by the rising cost of living?
The Labour Party sought a solution. In our Election manifesto we put forward a proposal that there should be an annual review of all benefits to ensure that their real value is maintained from one year to another. The Government are entitled to reject that proposal. I should like to know whether the Minister of Health rejects it, and if so, for what reason. If he rejects it, what is his solution? No one can deny that the problem exists. Consequently, if our solution is rejected, what is the Government's solution? Or do the Government propose to allow the cost of living to rise until, in the end, public opinion drives them to bring in a new Measure to try to catch up with the problem?
There is another problem of immense importance. When we began the scheme we hoped to provide for the needs in adversity of most of the people by means of the basic benefits under the National Insurance Scheme. That has not been done. As the Minister said, the number of people in receipt of National Assistance has been climbing all the time. The number is greater now than it has ever been.

Mr. Peake: No.

Mr. Griffiths: It is, indeed.

Mr. Peake: No. The number is 120,000 to 130,000 less than it was six weeks ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Let me correct what I said. Before the last increases were made, the number receiving National Assistance was greater than it had ever been. When we discussed the National Assistance Regulations in December the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, in column 2449 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 20th December, that the number of people affected by the regulations was 2½ million. The Minister told us this afternoon, in reply to a question which I put to him, that the number of persons in receipt of National Assistance has declined by 111,000 in consequence of the recent increase in the basic rates. That means that there are still more than 2 million receiving Assistance. That means that 22 per cent. to 23 per cent. of all the retirement pensioners in this country were receiving Assistance to supplement their basic rate last December.
What is the percentage now? Is it 20 per cent.? Let us assume that it is. That means that having had this recent increase at the expense of 1s. extra on the contribution paid by the worker, one in five of all pensioners now have to ask for Assistance to supplement their basic pensions. There is the problem. Are we to leave it there? Is the Minister bringing forward legislation to deal with that problem, or are we now confronted with the fact that it is accepted as a permanent part of our social service scheme that benefits are to be left at such levels that 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of all retirement pensioners will have to seek Assistance? Those are the fundamental changes which have taken place and in the Gracious Speech there is no indication that we are to deal with this very big and fundamental problem which has arisen in our experience of the Scheme.
I turn to one or two other points which have already been raised. If we are to consider making the Insurance Scheme a scheme to provide benefits by which the bulk of the people will be covered, and we are to retain the contributory principle, do we believe that that can be done in 1955 by retaining the principle of a flat-rate contribution? The flat-rate contribution has already reached the stage where it is the most aggressive tax we have. I had a good deal of hesitation in raising it to merely 5s. Let us look at what it has now become.
Would the Minister care to tell the House how many of the self-employed are finding it impossible to pay the contributions? What is the number of evasions? Small shopkeepers and people engaged in trade on their own—and we have heard a lot of talk about the difficulties of these people—are finding it impossible to maintain their contributions. What is the size of the problem of evasion? My own view —and I say this to my friends in the trade union movement as well as to my friends here—is that our experience proves conclusively that if we are to retain the contributory principle, the insurance principle, if we are to raise the basic benefits to a level at which it will be unnecessary for one in five of our pensioners to seek Assistance, then we have come to an end of the value of the flat-rate contribution in our Insurance Scheme and we have to think again.
I know that there are all kinds of difficulties. I know the views of the trade unions and the views of industry. But in the industries I know best, as well as in others, the proportion of the contribution to the total earnings of the lower paid man compared with the higher paid man raises a serious problem. That problem has been aggravated by the relationship of the contribution to taxation. I have said before and I will repeat it, because it is important, that the only person who now pays the full insurance contribution is the one who does not earn enough to pay Income Tax.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance does not deny that and the Minister of Health will not deny it. We may pay insurance contributions, but a substantial proportion is set against Income Tax. Those who earn the biggest incomes in industry do the same thing. The only person who pays the full contribution is the one who has had it deducted from his earnings and who does not pay Income Tax. The flat-rate contribution has become the worst kind of aggressive taxation and should be seriously considered.
There are alternatives, which have been discussed today. I would ask the Minister whether it is not time that the fundamental problem of financing the scheme should be referred to the National Advisory Committee. He has told us that he has referred four problems dealing with the structure of the scheme to


that body, namely, the re-examination of the problem of short spells of sickness and unemployment; the liability of persons with small incomes; contribution conditions, and the question of widows' benefits, including that of the 10s. widow. They are all important anomalies which have been revealed in our experience of the working of the Scheme, but there are many others, both in the National Insurance Scheme and in the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
I should have thought that with the advantage of our years of experience of the working of the Scheme, and the actuaries' reports we should now be in a position to refer to the Advisory Committee some of the fundamental problems which have arisen. What is to be the future method of financing this Scheme? Are we to retain the subsistence principle in fixing our basic benefits? If so, how are we to fix those basic benefits? Upon what criterion are they to be based, or upon what cost-of-living index? Can we maintain the subsistence principle either upon the Beveridge basis or any other basis in the future, while still maintaining the flat-rate contributory principle? If we cannot, what is the alternative; a system of graduated contributions, a social security tax, or the transference of some part or all of the scheme to general taxation? There are all kinds of variants and problems which ought to be considered. Surely they should be referred to the National Advisory Committee.
In the light of what he has heard today I hope that the Minister will reconsider referring some of the basic problems to the Committee. When the announcement was made of the setting up of the Phillips Committee I understood that it was set up to consider some of these fundamental questions, which it was thought the National Advisory Committee could not consider. We have had the Report of the Phillips Committee. One of its recommendations was that the retirement age should be raised. I understand that the Government have rejected that recommendation. We have heard nothing about the rest of the Report. In setting up this Committee we asked busy people to give their time and effort, and they have made their report. The Minister has made only a cursory reference to the Report; there has not been a debate upon it, and we have not been told a word about the conclusions which the

Government draw from the recommendations. We have had no real quinquennial review of this Scheme.
Now I come to our proposals, and the reasons for them. We propose that a Ministry of Social Welfare should be set up. That Ministry should undertake the work which is now carried on by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and it should also absorb the functions which are now performed by the National Assistance Board. It would mean the abolition of an independent Assistance Board.
Why do we advocate that step? First, we believe that unless a fundamental change is made in our system of social insurance, National Assistance will become, increasingly, not a residual service but an integral part of our welfare system. At present, there are between 2 million and 2½ million persons on National Assistance. From our experience in going about the country and in visiting our constituencies we know that many people—and they are among the best of our people—will not apply for National Assistance.
I am not blaming the Assistance Board; it has done a good job. I am not blaming the local officers, who have also done a good job. I wish especially to make that point clear. The fact is that we set out to abolish the Poor Law and replace it by National Insurance and National Assistance. We have not succeeded. I say that "we" have not succeeded. This House has not. Successive Governments have not. There are still people who are in dire need of Assistance which could be provided, but who will not ask for it because they feel it would lower their dignity if they did so. There is still a tinge of charity about it, and so long as that remains we shall have failed.
How shall we overcome that problem? I have come to the conclusion that we shall never do it so long as we have a separate Assistance Board and separate Assistance officers. We therefore propose to absorb it into the Ministry of Social Welfare. We propose that there should be one local office, the office of the Ministry of Social Welfare, which will deal with all pensions, insurance benefits, supplementary benefits and the rest. We propose that the Minister shall be responsible to Parliament, because we believe that until


we recast the whole of the Scheme, Assistance is such an important part of the provision that we make for people's welfare and needs, that the Minister ought to be directly responsible to Parliament. We propose that every year the Minister should come to the House and review all the benefits, and the rates of Assistance, and should give a report to the House and relate it to this problem of maintaining the real value of benefits and assistance.
The Government may reject that proposal, but if they reject it what is their alternative? Are we to go on for another year or two while there are still people in need of help and who will not go to the Assistance Board because they believe it is undignified to do so? There is the problem, and there is our proposal. If the Minister is to reject it, I would like him to reconsider what his alternative is, or does he propose to let the present state of affairs continue?
All of this illustrates the point which I am making, that our aim of providing a national scheme in which the basic pension covers people's needs has not been achieved. One of the consequences of that is that the people are looking outside the Scheme for some other provision to do what Lord Beveridge thought the Scheme itself would provide. There is a growing demand among workers in industry for voluntary superannuation schemes. At present, one-third of all the workers in the county—8 million out of 24 million —are covered by superannuation schemes. The number is increasing every year.
The result is that workers are contributing towards the National Insurance Scheme on a flat-rate contribution basis, and towards their voluntary superannuation schemes on either a flat rate or some other basis, and the number grows all the time. What are the Government's views about that? Do they propose to encourage it? If they propose to encourage it, what steps do they propose to take to ensure that the two-thirds of the workers not covered by the schemes are covered by them? Do the Government realise that this becomes an increasingly acute problem as the number of persons covered by voluntary contributory schemes increases, by reason of their non-transferability?
Does the Minister realise that if a person who has contributed for ten or

fifteen years to a voluntary contributory scheme in a firm leaves that employment, even if it is better for him or for the nation that he should leave that employment, he surrenders all or most of the benefits which have accrued while he has contributed towards his pension? Has consideration been given to the question of transferability, of arranging for these schemes to be transferable from one job to another so that a man may be free to change his job if he finds another in which he can render greater service for the nation?
Those are some of the enormous problems which exist. I have mentioned only a few and my hon. Friends have mentioned others. They are some of the problems which have developed and grown in the last seven or eight years—indeed, in the ten years which have passed since 1945. I had thought that in the speech which the Minister had the opportunity to make this afternoon we should have from him a comprehensive survey of the changes which I have mentioned and of all the other changes which my hon. Friends have mentioned. I had thought that he would give us his view of what consideration of a fundamental kind should be given to the future of the social services.
I want to mention one other aspect, if I may. We accepted the Beveridge proposal about subsistence, but the fact that we accepted it then does not mean that we are tied to it for ever. Have the sick and the unemployed, and, in particular, the old, always to be tied to a subsistence basis? Are they in any way to be provided with some increase related to the increased prosperity and productivity of the country? Or are they to be the only persons tied to a subsistence level, while everybody else is developing towards a higher standard of life? What my hon. Friend said is perfectly true; pensions and benefits, in proportion to earnings, are becoming lower every week.
What would happen if we had a touch of unemployment and people went straight from wages to unemployment benefit at existing levels? If we have a recession, as we might, and if October holds for us what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid it held for us when he spoke in February, and we have unemployment, it will destroy the Scheme


in a week. I speak with some experience. If we have unemployment in industry, and men go from their wages to unemployment benefit at the existing rates, that will create a very serious position. All these are problems which deserve full consideration. With my hon. Friends, I am disappointed that the Minister gave no indication that either he himself, directly as a Minister, or his Advisory Committee is to give serious consideration to these fundamental problems.
Is there any hon. Member on either side of the House who has not come back from his Election experiences on Assistance convinced that these 2 million people are getting a raw deal? Consider the old age pensioners who are on Assistance and whose Assistance level was raised and then dropped as the insurance benefits were increased. Consider those of 65 or 70 years of age who have been through 10 years of war and through years of depression in their working lives. Has any hon. Member returned from his Election experiences who is not convinced that they are getting a raw deal from us as a Parliament and as a nation?
The Minister spoke of leaving the initiative to the National Assistance Board. I remind him that I, too, have been a Minister. I say that these people who are on Assistance and who are getting the worst deal of all, who really are suffering, ought to be the first priority. The Government ought to indicate to the Assistance Board that the matter should be dealt with at once. I beg the House to realise that, having dealt with that first priority, we must recognise that it is time that we gave consideration to some of the basic problems which I have sought to raise.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am bound to confess that when I first heard that we were to have a debate on the social services today my heart sank, because we had the identical debate—and a rather desultory debate it was—just before we left for the hustings, indeed, when most hon. Members had already gone. I rather feared that the new knights and burgesses of the Parliament who had returned would be making the same speeches which were made two days before Parliament was

dissolved. However, one can say—reversing the usual order of things—that the maidens came to the rescue of the knights. We have had three excellent maiden speeches on which I should very sincerely like to congratulate those who made them.
I will take in a sense as a text for what I want to say, one sentence from something said by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon). The hon. Member spoke of the tuberculosis figures in Bootle. Very serious indeed they were, but if we look at the figures we find that in 1949 in Bootle the death rate per million was 1,043 and in 1954 it was 273. That is an enormous and dramatic change covering the period of both Governments.
I shall have a number of controversial things to say tonight because, unlike the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I have a very poor opinion of the record of the Socialist Party both in promise and performance in relation to the social services, but we can still take those figures in some way as a mirror of the progress which we have been making in these years. Whatever conflicts we have across the Floor of the House, and whatever pattern the social services take in future, I think we can say that, not just now, but for many years, the social services of this country have been the finest in the world.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) opened the debate with some not particularly kind references to myself. I do not complain about that because last time she was very charming to me and I suppose 50 per cent. is as good an average as I can expect. She will remember that last time she was surprisingly gay. She had shaken off the dust of Fulham from her feet, if that is the right way of putting it, and was going to the freer air of Warrington. She came into the debate with her cane, but she swished it in the air and did not reach out for any more substantial targets. Now she has returned a sadder and—anyway a sadder woman—having converted Warrington into a marginal seat and, so far as I could make out, she took up her speech today exactly as she left off seven weeks ago.
I am bound to say that, although no doubt it was an excellent speech, it seemed a little hard on the rest of us. I


can see no reason why the class should be kept in because teacher wants to finish her prep. The right hon. Lady succeeded also in getting more fallacies into what she said about the Gracious Speech than would be possible without very concentrated thought.
Of course the Gracious Speech covers only one aspect of the programme which we have outlined in our policy statement. Of my own subjects, the only promise of legislation was in regard to medical auxiliaries. I do not think it likely that that legislation will be ready for this Session, although considerable progress has been made. As to some of the other matters concerned, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) mentioned the Gowers Committee Report. Naturally, the promise that was given will be fully implemented, and the Bills will be brought forward.
As to matters which do not particularly concern legislation, such as poliomyelitis, to which the right hon. Lady referred—on which legislation is not at present needed—I hope, in the course of my remarks tonight, to carry a little further what I said in answer to a Question yesterday. The right hon. Lady asked me some very important questions, and throughout the day that was rather the theme of the debate. I was asked an immense number of questions covering six or eight different Ministries. I will do my best to answer them although those concerning another Minister that are in particular detail can perhaps best be dealt with by correspondence.
The right hon. Lady's most important question—the one that worries us all—is how we are getting on with the provision of beds on the mental side. It is easier to talk about mental deficiency, because there is a recognisable waiting list against which progress can be measured, which is not true, at any rate in general, of the mental hospitals. As far as mental deficiency is concerned, schemes that are already approved and in current building programmes will provide 7,000 new beds and there are under consideration schemes which will provide at least another 2.000.

Mr. E. G. Willis: For England and Wales?

Mr. Macleod: Yes.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister says that they are "under consideration." What we want to know is when the beds will be occupied.

Mr. Macleod: One cannot give a precise figure for that, for some of the big schemes, like Greaves Hall, which is going up near Southport, will extend over a number of years. These are schemes which are already approved, in current building programmes, and take no account of the new capital investment programme which I announced to the House a short time ago.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. If these schemes have merely been approved, building may not commence for two or three years and it may be ten years before the 7,000 beds to which he refers are occupied.

Mr. Macleod: Some of the very big schemes, such as Greaves Hall, certainly take a considerable number of years. How many years, one cannot say precisely. But against that figure we have to look at the waiting list, which at 31st Dceember, 1953, was 8,442. It was reduced—this shows the progress we are making—at the end of December, 1954, to 7,033, a reduction of 1,400. It will, therefore, be seen that we have already approved, quite apart from the schemes coming forward in proposals that will be laid before the House, sufficient beds to measure up to the size of the problem as far as mental deficiency is concerned.
As far as the mental hospitals are concerned, 1,000 extra beds have been provided since 1948. Beyond that, 3,000 have been approved in the current programme and we are looking at proposals for another 500. That is not a contribution to deal with a waiting list but is essentially a contribution to ease overcrowding, which—I do not pretend anything else—is very serious indeed. Although in many places the figure is much worse, the average is 15·6 per cent. Therefore, quite apart from that, we plan in addition to build new hospitals. I announced in the programme that one of the first hospitals to be built will be a mental hospital near Wolverhampton, and others are planned both for Lancashire and Yorkshire.
As far as the staffing problem is concerned, to which the right hon. Lady referred, there is a deficiency which might


be estimated at about 10,000. But the nursing staff as a whole—I am talking still of the mental side—has been slightly increasing year by year. We should not forget that. Too often the impression is given that the numbers of staff are declining—they are not. The grave problem is that of attracting, and above all keeping, student nurses. We have taken a great number of steps in this matter. I have outlined them many times to the House.
We have now deferment from National Service for male student nurses. Moreover, it has been agreed with the Service Departments that when, after their training in nursing, those men do their National Service, they do so in a nursing capacity. We have tried, by the employment of nursing assistants, by different methods of training student nurses, by refresher courses, and by inquiries into working conditions, to help to solve this problem, but I admit that it remains one of the most intractable which a Minister has to confront.
Still in answer to the right hon. Lady, I will very quickly give some information about the home-help service in which she was interested. The numbers have gone up from over 11,000 at the end of 1948 to over 33,000 at the end of 1954. They make, therefore, a most important contribution to the care of the sick. In the last year 62 per cent. of the cases they looked after were, I am told, classified as chronic sick.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman is still speaking of England and Wales?

Mr. Macleod: All the figures, unless I say to the contrary, are for England and Wales.
There is no absolute duty under the National Health Service Acts to provide this service, but all the local authorities, I am glad to say, provide it.
The right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) dealt with the need for provision for the elderly sick.

Miss Herbison: It looks as though the right hon. Gentleman has now stopped giving figures about hospitals. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) made her speech she spoke for the whole of the United Kingdom, but now the right hon.

Gentleman, although we have been listening and waiting for figures for Scotland, too, has given us figures which apply to England and Wales only, and has not given us a single one for Scotland.

Mr. Macleod: The figures I have been giving are those for which I am responsible as Minister of Health in England and Wales, but I do not think that the pattern is very different in Scotland.
The very next point I was going to make was that it was a Scottish committee that suggested what, in ideal circumstances, the ratio might be of beds for the elderly sick. It was suggested that 1 per 1,000 was a suitable figure, though my own view would be, as, I think, that of most people would be, that we probably need a higher ratio than that. Clearly, what matters is that all these services, the hospital services, the local authorities' services, the welfare services, the general practitioner services, and the services of the voluntary bodies and the rest, must march together if we are to provide adequately for our old people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) mentioned a circular that relates to remuneration. That circular was agreed with the Whitley Council with which it was negotiated, and was for a grade of nursing auxiliaries which had not previously had a recognised scale of remuneration.
I take up now the point about teachers' pensions being paid quarterly. I understand from the Minister of Education—I think he said this in the House—that this will be included amongst those matters to be discussed in the forthcoming consultations with the teachers and the local authorities on the superannuation scheme.
Next I come to the very notable point indeed made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on liberty and the law. I am not to be taken as agreeing with the conclusions which he set before the House, nor with those contained in the admirable pamphlet called "The Rule of Law," which a number of my hon. Friends have produced, but we recognised in our election manifesto that there is considerable anxiety on this score.
Speaking entirely personally, it does trouble me that as a Minister I have such powers in my hands, against which there is no appeal, powers under which


enormous fines can be imposed, under which, indeed, since virtually there is more or less a monopoly of health services in this country, I can take away a man's livelihood. It is true that one spends a great deal of time studying these matters but the conning of minutes is not the same thing as the hearing of evidence, and I think that we all feel that there is here a problem which we cannot brush aside, and one into which we should like to inquire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) generously suggested that I should take upon myself an enormous extra load of work in connection with school dental and medical services, food hygiene, the industrial health service, and so on. It is true, as he said, that reports are being made on different aspects of the social services, for example the Guillebaud and the Phillips Reports, and therefore it is natural that we should begin to look at the administrative structure of the social services.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) devoted a good deal of her speech to the question of the old workmen's compensation cases, and urged that something more should be done for them. It is a problem which we all know very well and one about which people feel deeply. It is one to which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington could not find an answer, although they both tried.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance did something in 1952 for these men who are unable to work, and again at the end of last year, by increasing the sickness benefit and their unemployability supplement. These matters were discussed by my right hon. Friend and the T.U.C. before the Election, and no doubt now that the Election is behind us they will be discussed again.
Before referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, perhaps I should say a few words about a point which was made in many speeches on the question of disregards and the earnings rule. One should keep in one's mind, when considering disregards, which in my view are extremely generous, that if one alters the disregards upwards one does

not help the poorest of the poor. That can only be done by an increase in the scale rates.
Secondly, one should remember that the earnings rule, in respect of which the maximum has been increased since the scheme was introduced, is clearly bound up with the retirement principle. If we elect to scrap the retirement principle there will be no need for an earnings rule, but if we are going to keep pushing up the earnings rule it is bound to come into conflict with the retirement principle itself and may well induce men and women to leave full-time employment. It is important, though it need not be decisive in our minds, that the Phillips Committee reported against the suggested change.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the earnings rule do not apply to widows' pensions. Will he say a few words about them?

Mr. Macleod: I was talking about retirement pensions, and I should not like to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said in his opening speech today.
We heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Sowerby about the need for basic thinking about the social services. I am not particularly impressed by the Socialist record. The Socialists have been in power four times and they have never produced a Bill of any importance at all to deal with housing or a Bill of any sort on education, and they have done nothing at all in respect of National Insurance and National Assistance except pick other men's flowers. They have been rejecting today every single one of the principles entrenched in the 1946 Act. One by one all these are being defended from this side of the House. It is from the other side of the House that the attack comes on National Assistance, on the retirement principle, on the insurance principle, and on the flat-rate benefit.
All I should like to say is that this is a matter of great importance. It would be helpful if the Opposition would devote to it some of the years ahead of them in opposition. They have begun a long lease of the benches opposite—yes,


the freehold. We will apply the Landlord and Tenant Act to them in due course.
It would be helpful if hon. and right hon. Members opposite made up their minds on some of these issues. There is one particular matter on which there was a certain amount of original thought from the Socialist Party, and that was the National Health Service Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, a certain amount. I am always very generous in these matters. I have always stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had every qualification to bring in the National Health Service except common sense. I profoundly believe that to be true.
What does delight us on this side of the House is that some time this year, probably in the autumn, we shall have a report from Mr. Guillebaud's Committee. This Committee was set up by a Tory Minister and it will report to a Tory Minister. The review and any reconstruction in the National Health Service that will follow from that will be carried out by this Government.
I turn, if I may, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly. He is what might be described in the social services as a founder member of the "ask your dad" school of debate. He put a number of questions to me about the policy on which he fought the General Election, and asked me whether I accepted or rejected it. The short answer to that is, I do not have to. The country has already done it. The electors have already rejected the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has now put before this House.
The solution that he brought up again was to link the cost of living and pensions. The difficulty is to tie the two together. That solution is the one thing that he himself described a few years ago as impracticable. He knows he did so, but he has now changed his mind. He is perfectly entitled to change his mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: But the Minister himself has changed his mind, as has his party. He has just paid a handsome tribute to the National Health Service, which hon. Members opposite resolutely opposed when it first came before this House.

Sir T. Moore: Nonsense.

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman urges an annual review of benefit rates, which means an annual review of contributions. He asked me to comment on it. I will answer him in the words of the Phillips Committee, in paragraph 215.
On the whole, the conclusion we have reached is that there cannot be any stereotyped formula for fixing the level of benefit and changes should not be made except at infrequent intervals and unless there are compelling reasons.
That is exactly the same point that we on this side of the House take, and we reject the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, as the country has already rejected them.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said in his speech that it was necessary to try to think out the way that these social services should go ahead. I would agree with him but would differ from him as to whence the constructive thought will come. No constructive thought can be expected from the benches opposite.
It is after the passing of the legislation that the work begins, and we ought now in all these schemes to be breaking clear of the teething troubles that were bound to affect some of them, whichever side of the House sponsored their passage into law originally. Is it possible to find some principles that should guide us in this period ahead? I should like to put three before the House. First, I think that increasingly we would like to see—particularly on this side of the House—responsibility going where the work is done. That will mean, of course, a trend in responsibility downwards. It is one of the matters that are being considered by the Ministers concerned with local government, and the House will remember the references to local government reform in the Gracious Speech.
Secondly, I think we should try to bind together more closely than we have done already, not in opposition but in comradeship, the voluntary and the State services. That is the second principle which we should try to follow. It means that we should try to get leagues of friends increasingly active in the hospitals. It means that the hospitals should be more open than they are now. It means that the mental hospitals should have more open days. It means that people should begin to feel that they own the hospitals


and the schools just as much as they own the town hall or the football ground.
The third and last principle is that we should try to encourage diversity in the social services. We have no use for the strait-jacket approach of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the Health Service we have no interest in trying to prevent people buying privacy for themselves or their families, if they want to, when they or their families are ill. That was the one and only positive proposal which the party opposite found in the National Health Service to put before the electorate.
I do not believe that any single pattern can cover the range of the social services, and it is, therefore, of great importance that we should encourage independence in every possible way. I think also that we should not be ready to shrug off on to the State our own family and personal problems, and I think it is of great importance that we should encourage people deliberately to seek for, and to save for, a higher standard than the minimum provision of State insurance or assistance.
We reject altogether the proposals for insurance that have come from the opposite bench today. Indeed, they are the proposals which the Tory Party fought for and lost over in 1910. The Labour Party find themselves today—particularly its Left wing—ensconced in exactly the same ditch that we abandoned before the First World War.
Finally, it has to be remembered that the social services have to be earned and paid for by the prosperity of this country —my right hon. Friend made that point in his opening speech—because these social services are not a gift of Government. They are not the property of any political party, in spite of the protestations of the party opposite. They belong to the people. They are their services, and it is the duty of social service Ministers to do what they can to administer them in the interests of the people.

Miss Herbison: May I ask the Minister a question about Scottish affairs? He said he was speaking as the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman has covered so many subjects tonight that

he has not been speaking as the Minister of Health but for the Government. In the pathetic speech he has made he has not given one answer to any of the questions affecting the great country of Scotland. Can he give us any of the figures for Scotland corresponding to those which he gave for England?

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

PRIVILEGES

Committee of Privileges to consist of Ten Members:—

Mr. Attlee, The Attorney-General, Mr. Crookshank, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Ede, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Mitchison, Sir Patrick Spens, Mr. Viant, and Captain Waterhouse:—

Power to send for persons, papers and records:—

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — COMMERCIAL TELEVISION (ADVERTISING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General some questions about advertising periods on commercial television. I think we agree that what may be termed the gestation period of commercial television is now well advanced, and that we may confidently expect to see the first programmes on the air by the early autumn.
During the passage of the Television Act, 1954, through the House, hon. Members on both sides questioned the wisdom of introducing commercial television into this country, but when our deliberations had concluded the fear of many had been completely removed and others were satisfied that a very reasonable compromise had been reached. Long, and sometimes heated, discussions ranged around the type and quality of the programmes that we were likely to have and the manner in which advertising matter should be controlled, both as to the time allowed and the method by which it was


to be introduced into the commercial television programmes. Every effort was made to remove what we in this country believe to be the least desirable features of commercial television as it is practised abroad.
I believe we have succeeded in that aim. I am convinced that as a result of our efforts we shall have a wide variety of balanced programmes which will cater for all tastes. We know that they will include light entertainment, sporting events, drama, music and educational subjects.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: And advertising.

Mr. Burden: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will learn a lot about that before the evening is out if he will listen, and I hope he will be very well satisfied.
There will also be documentaries and shoppers' guides. I believe that the programmes will be wide in scope and variety and of a quality which will certainly bear comparison with those offered at present by the B.B.C.
I think we should welcome the fact that the I.T.A. will ensure that religious services and royal occasions are viewed by this new medium. It says much for the wisdom of right hon. and hon. Members that their sense of compromise has been able to create a situation whereby these programmes will be produced in such a way that proper dignity and good taste will be preserved.
Contrary to what some hon. Members opposite may think, I believe that the Act will ensure that commercial television will stay in this country. I go further than that. I think that commercial television here may well prove to be of such a standard that it will set the standard for commercial television throughout the world.
However, I am a little concerned about one aspect. I know that both sides of the House made very valiant efforts to ensure that the best interests of the viewing public would be protected. I hope that we have also ensured that the operating companies are given every reasonable chance to pay their way. I hope that in our zeal we have not hemmed in the programme companies with restrictions and rules that will deny to them the revenue that is essential if they are to

produce the high quality programmes we desire. Obviously, rules have had to be laid down with the I.T.A. and the programme companies as indicated in the Act under which the companies will now operate.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Member tell us what regulations have been laid down?

Mr. Burden: I suggest that the hon. Member, who has shown such interest in this matter, should read the Act. If he will listen for a little while, he will find that the Second Schedule does, in fact, lay down certain restrictions and rules. I have no doubt but that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will give the hon. Member a little more enlightenment on that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will indicate that the rules and restrictions are reasonable and have been interpreted by the Postmaster-General with the I.T.A. and the latter with the companies in such a way as to show that they are reasonable and not excessive. Quite contrary to the hon. Member for Keighley, I believe that these rules and restrictions are very real. If he does not think they are, that says very little for the long debates that took place and the very many strong criticisms and Amendments that were put forward by the Party opposite. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) believes that all that work on the part of his Party bore no fruit whatsoever.
These restrictions are quite real and, if the hon. Member will listen for a moment, I may be able to indicate one or two of them now. There is to be no advertising during, immediately before, or after religious services, and I do not think that anyone will quarrel with that. Similar restrictions on advertising will apply when Royal occasions are televised and paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule further provides:
Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or the end of the programme or in natural breaks therein, and rules (to be agreed upon from time to time between the Authority and the Postmaster-General, or settled by the Postmaster-General in default of such agreement) shall be observed—

(a) as to the interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertisements;


(b) as to the classes of broadcasts (which shall in particular include the broadcast of any religious service) in which advertisements may not be inserted, and the interval which must elapse between any such broadcast and any previous or subsequent period given over to advertisements."

The Television Act requires that the Postmaster-General shall see that the Independent Television Authority is acquainted with the requirements of Parliament.
It is quite obvious, therefore, that in the period between the passing of the Act and the present time the Postmaster-General, in order to ensure this, has been in consultation with the Independent Television Authority. Equally, of course, it is obvious that if the I.T.A. has carried out its duty, it has passed that information to the programme companies and so ensured that they will abide by the rules set down in the Act.
It would be helpful if the Minister would put us all a little more fully in the picture as to the conversations that have taken place and the interpretation of the rules arrived at between the Postmaster-General, the I.T.A. and the programme companies, because many people are anxious to be assured that while all the necessary safeguards are effected the programme companies will still be given sufficient advertising time and flexibility to pay their way.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Who is worried about that?

Mr. Hobson: On a point of order. I would draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the statement made on 23rd March by the Economic Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Assistant Postmaster-General, who was then ill. In reply to a Question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) the Economic Secretary stated quite categorically that:
The Television Act lays downs that advertisements may … be inserted at the beginning or end of the programme or in natural breaks." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2056.]
I suggest that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is asking for an alteration in legislation, which is out of order upon the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I did not understand that the hon. Member was asking for an

alteration of legislation, but if he were he would be out of order.

Mr. Burden: I am not asking for any alteration in legislation. I am asking for elucidation. It is obvious that further conversations have gone on between the Postmaster-General and the authorities concerned, and I want to know what is happening. I hope that the hon. Member for Keighley will find nothing wrong in that desire on my part.
We must bear in mind that programme companies will have to provide well-balanced programmes and these should, from time to time, contain substantial periods in which no advertisements are allowed. Is the Minister assured that, in those circumstances, the rules are not too rigid?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would require legislation.

Mr. Burden: Then I shall leave that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I am asking the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is convinced that they are too rigid. I do not think that that is asking him to change the law. He is quite entitled to express a point of view. If the programme companies are to pay their way they might well be forced to reduce the number or duration of the programmes in which advertisements are not permitted, in order to increase the revenue from other programmes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would require legislation.

Mr. Burden: Not necessarily, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are not bound to broadcast more than a very limited number of religious and other programmes in which there are no advertisements.
I want to know whether arrangements can be made to provide flexibility, so that the advertising periods can make up in some way for the loss that may be sustained by programme companies in broadcasting royal occasions, religious services and other very desirable programmes.
I do not profess to be an expert upon the finance of programme companies, but although we should take every practicable step to protect the viewing public I also believe that we should realise that the companies concerned must be given every


reasonable chance of making a success of what I am sure will turn out to be an admirable venture.

10.15 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for raising this matter as it will give me an opportunity to explain to the House, as he has asked me to explain, the arrangements which have been made by or agreed with the I.T.A. with regard to advertisements in their programmes. As the House may well imagine, a good deal of thought has been given to this matter as we are dealing with problems which have not previously arisen in television in this country.
The House is, no doubt, aware that some of these matters are left to the discretion of the I.T.A. under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act. This paragraph links up with Section 4 (3) of the Act which lays upon the Authority the duty to see that the provisions of the Second Schedule are complied with in respect of all advertisements which are broadcast by it. The particular responsibility which rests upon the Authority under paragraph 2 is to see that the time given to advertising does not detract from the value of the programme as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information.
Apart from this obligation which has been placed on the Authority, paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule lays down that rules have to be agreed between the Authority and the Postmaster-General, and in default of such agreement they have to be settled by the Postmaster-General himself. These rules are, firstly, the interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertising; and, secondly, the special classes of broadcasts, including religious services, in which advertisements may not be inserted, and the interval which must elapse between any such broadcasts and the advertisements immediately preceding or following them. I am glad to be able to tell the House that there has been no disagreement whatever between the I.T.A. and the Postmaster-General, and therefore it has not been necessary for my right hon. Friend to exercise any of the powers given to him under the Act ruling against the Authority in any way whatsoever.
The first point I want to deal with is the amount of time given to advertising. As the House is aware, the I.T.A. has decided that apart from shoppers' guides and advertising documentaries, the time given to advertising shall not be more than six minutes an hour. That fact has been given in answer to a Parliamentary Question.

Mr. Hobson: On 23rd March.

Mr. Gammans: The House may remember that when we debated this matter I was asked what, in my opinion, would be the time allotted to advertising. I then suggested that it might be of the order of 10 per cent. of the total time, and I am glad to say that the I.T.A., after very careful consideration, has come to the same conclusion. The shoppers' guides and the advertising documentaries are, of course, in a class by themselves; and incidentally, I may tell the House that the I.T.A. has decided to call these particular items "advertising magazines" and "advertising features."
Subject to the overriding limitation that advertisements may be inserted only in natural breaks in a programme, and also subject to the maximum total time of six minutes' advertising per hour, there must not be more than six advertising periods per hour. But it is obvious—and this is the point which I think my hon. Friend had in mind—that this rule must be interpreted in a way which permits of good programming, as otherwise we might have a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which would detract from the value of these programmes to the public as a whole.
It will all depend on the nature of the programme. For example, it would be hopeless to apply a rigid rule of six advertising periods an hour to a football match which lasts one-and-a-half hours, with only one break in it. On the other hand, if there were an hour's boxing there would be a natural break at the end of every round of three minutes or so, and it would be possible to insert a larger number of advertisements than in the ease of a football match.
The same difficulty arises when we consider plays. The last thing we want to do is to put our playwrights and producers in a position in which we call upon them to tailor their plays so that a rigid number of six breaks per hour


can be included. If we did that we should certainly not get good plays. A play might continue for an hour or more with perhaps only one interval, if there were an interval at all. In an athletics meeting, on the other hand, a number of events might last no more than a few minutes. If we take as an example an athletics meeting in which the mile is being run, that is now a matter of four minutes, while the hundred yards event would be over in a fraction of a minute.
I give these examples only to make it clear that this rule that the number of advertising periods shall not exceed six per hour must be averaged over the day's programme as a whole and not over any specific programme of one hour.

Mr. Hobson: I am pleased to have an assurance that the six-minute breaks are to be spread, if necessary, over a longer period and averaged out. The hon. Gentleman mentioned shoppers' guides which could be given in the form of documentary films. Is such a film to be classified as one of these periods of six minutes per hour or is it entirely independent of the amount of time which was laid down in the House on 23rd March, when it was stated that the limit should be six minutes?

Mr. Gammans: It has always been understood and stated that shoppers' guides are in a category by themselves.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Additional.

Mr. Gammans: Additional.
To sum up, if we take the programme provided by a given programme contractor on any particular day, the amount of time given to advertisements will not exceed six minutes per hour and the number of periods of advertising will not exceed six per hour, averaged in both cases over the total broadcasting time that day, excluding from the calculation advertising magazines, advertising features, test transmissions and programmes from which advertisements are banned altogether. Furthermore, however short an item in any programme may be, as, for example, a short swimming race, in no circumstances will the interval between advertising periods be less than three minutes.
Now let me deal with the special types of broadcast which are mentioned in

paragraph 3 (b) of the Second Schedule. The three types of broadcast which we had in mind were, firstly, religious services; secondly, any formal Royal occasion or ceremony; and, thirdly, any appearance of Her Majesty or a member of the Royal Family in the course of an event in which such appearance is only incidental to the occasion, as, for example, the F.A. Cup Final.
The Act lays down that there will be no advertising in broadcasts of that type, but what we want to do in addition is to preserve a reasonable interval between that sort of programme and any preceding or following advertisements. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, agreed with the I.T.A. that there shall be an interval of at least two minutes between the last previous period given over to advertising and the commencement of any such broadcast, with a similar period at the end. A further rule has been agreed, namely, that during these periods before and after these special types of broadcast any programme which is broadcast must be of a tone and style suitable to the special broadcast in question. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say that in matters of that sort in which any doubt could possibly arise, the I.T.A. will consult officials of the Royal Household.
I cannot leave the general question of advertising without saying a word about the code of television advertising drawn up by the I.T.A. and agreed to by my right hon. Friend. Under Section 8 (2, b) of the Television Act, the Advertising Committee of the I.T.A. duly presented to the Authority a code of standards of advertising for commercial television. This code also specifies the classes of goods and services which should not be advertised and the methods of advertising which should not be employed in I.T.A. programmes. The Authority accepted the recommendations of that Committee and, again, the Postmaster General, when consulted under Section 4 (5) of the Act, was able to agree fully with the proposals of the Authority. If hon. Members are interested in this, I suggest that they should read the code of principles for television advertising of which the Authority will be only too happy to provide a copy.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Free of charge?

Mr. Gammans: Free of charge. I have put some copies in the Library.
I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with the explanation which I have given. We are about to start in a new sphere and must obviously be guided by experience and common sense. It is also clear that any rules that are laid down must strike a happy medium between the programmes and the advertisements, and above all that those rules must be workable.
It was the express desire of this House, when we discussed the Television Bill, that the programmes should be controlled by a competent authority in order to see that the type of programme put out was of the highest possible order and quality and in conformity with what I will term the British way of life. The Authority tells me that in its consultations with the programme contractors the latter fully accepted this general principle in their approach to the whole question and in considering the design of their programmes. I always felt that that would be the attitude of the programme contractors. Personally, I have no doubt that when the programmes start, as they will in September, they will meet with the general approval of the viewing public.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am sure that we are grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General for giving us what was really a Third Reading speech on the Schedules to the Act, but it was with some alarm and, indeed, despondency that we heard that not only are we to have six-minute periods for the purpose of advertising as laid down in the statement of 22nd March, but are, apparently, to be faced with shopping guides in the form of documentary films which are not to be calculated as part of the six-minute periods. We could very well have a situation not only of 10 per cent. of the hour taken for advertising but of 50 per cent. of that time—

Mr. Gammans: That would be quite impossible, because the Authority has power, under the Television Act, to insist upon a balanced programme.

Mr. Hobson: While that is perfectly true, there is nothing to prevent the Authority not using that power. It is a question entirely of judgment and, knowing the pressure groups which surround these people, I can well visualise a situation, in the circumstances outlined by the Assistant Postmaster-General, in which we could have 50 per cent. advertising in one specific hour.
We shall have to read the statement of the hon. Gentleman very carefully. I consider this to be a complete departure from: the intention and assurances given by the Home Secretary, when he spoke on behalf of the Government. It merely follows what we have always said would be the case—a "Rake's Progress"—and this is the beginning. It will be an advertising paradise. The contractors will be in a position to control the time of the programme. As is already noticeable in advertisements on the Underground and elsewhere, this is entirely a question of entertainment rather than of culture.
As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that the programme contractors need to earn more money to go forward, I would point out that they are already in receipt of several hundreds of thousands of pounds—

Mr. Burden: This is malicious and disgraceful—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.